How I believe the Durkula awareness reveal will go.

[XxXU2XxX]

Belkar is obviously aware already and that's our link to the inevitable reveal to the rest of the party that Durkula is indeed a bloodsucking abomination and not our good pal Durkon. Belkar's initial concerns are actually going to be the push that sets the dominos in motion. One down.

Elan will be the next member to find out. He'll hear something he shouldn't have and that'll convince him. A nice touch of irony to the stupidity of villains announcing their evil plans aloud. Also a nice opportunity to reveal Hel's scheme to the audience. Look at that, two reveals with one stone. Anyway, Elan will run to tell Roy and the fool won't believe him because Elan didn't see with his own eyes or have any physical proof. Roy will brush the whole thing off as Elan hearing things and Elan will join Belkar's cause. Two down.

Elan will of course tell Haley and she will of course believe him. Three down.

Vaarsuvius I admit is a bit trickier. I don't quite know how he/she will find out exactly, but he/she is the crucial piece required to checkmate the King. Perhaps amidst a battle, Durkula will make a crucial magical error; an error no Lawful Good cleric could make. Vaarsuvius and his/her vast intellect will register the mistake and tell Roy immediately rather than withhold information as in the past. A nice touch of character development for V and another one joins the fold. Four down.

However, the Fiends will anticipate Roy will believe V and withhold her/his soul again. This necessary lag in time will be just what Roy needs to seed denial into his brain. V will tell him and he'll will have no reason to doubt it now. Why should he? V is calculating, V is logical, V wouldn't say Durkon is a vampire unless Durkon was a vampire. But why would V wait to tell Roy? He/she told Roy about the planet in the rift during Tarquin's attack, why wait around this time? You have doubts don't you V? What's the REAL reason the Fiends withheld your soul during the battle? Were you about to stop the bad guys or something? Durkula will of course deny it and Roy will STILL believe him. Roy won't accept V's findings. His pride won't let him believe he let his best friend die. Deep down I think he'll know, but he won't accept it.

Until THAT battle comes. What battle you ask? You know what battle I'm talking about. Durkula will be about to enact the final step in Hel's plan when who will stumble upon the evil vampire once again? Belkar. Their duel will result in yet another timely appearance of another Order member: this time it will be Roy. He'll see Belkar dying at Durkula's hands or fangs in this case and that'll be all the proof Roy needs. Royal Flush.

Roy will destroy Durkula and then admit to Belkar he was right all along as well as recognize and praise his usefulness before passing.

And that is how I see it happening.


TL;DR - Belkar convinces Elan, Haley, V, and finally Roy in that order.

[Kish]

I have an alternate proposal. The High Priest of Hel will tip his hand at some point, either deliberately or accidentally; he may well simply get to a point where he no longer finds the Order helpful or thinks they're relevant and stop acting. The Order will all* become aware that he's not Durkon at the same time, and from that time forward there will be no ambiguity that he is not.

*Not counting Belkar, whether or not he lives that long.

[zimmerwald1915]

I have an alternate proposal. The High Priest of Hel will tip his hand at some point, either deliberately or accidentally; he may well simply get to a point where he no longer finds the Order helpful or thinks they're relevant and stop acting. The Order will all* become aware that he's not Durkon at the same time, and from that time forward there will be no ambiguity that he is not.

*Not counting Belkar, whether or not he lives that long.
Corollary: some of the Order will continue to not be aware after that point.

[grandpheonix]

Im thinkin that i gotta stop reading the forums. Gahhhh! Now i gotta force myself to not read OotS for another year!


Jk i thing The Giant has a different way of making it happen. And if Roy found out through a crappy listen check, itd be suuuuper lame.

[Senselesstaste]

However, the Fiends will anticipate Roy will believe V and withhold her/his soul again. This necessary lag in time will be just what Roy needs to seed denial into his brain. V will tell him and he'll will have no reason to doubt it now. Why should he? V is calculating, V is logical, V wouldn't say Durkon is a vampire unless Durkon was a vampire. But why would V wait to tell Roy? He/she told Roy about the planet in the rift during Tarquin's attack, why wait around this time? You have doubts don't you V? What's the REAL reason the Fiends withheld your soul during the battle? Were you about to stop the bad guys or something? Durkula will of course deny it and Roy will STILL believe him. Roy won't accept V's findings. His pride won't let him believe he let his best friend die. Deep down I think he'll know, but he won't accept it.

I wasn't aware Durkon being a vampire or not was in question.

[XxXU2XxX]

I wasn't aware Durkon being a vampire or not was in question.

You know what I meant.

[XxXU2XxX]

OP here. I don't mean to double post, but does no one have any legitimate thoughts on this idea? I'd hate to see my analysis shrivel up and die...

[Kish]

My thought is that it says very bad things about a work if you can predict exactly how a volume of it is going to go.

Beyond that, though, apparently disagreeing is not "legitimate," so, have fun with that.

[XxXU2XxX]

My thought is that it says very bad things about a work if you can predict exactly how a volume of it is going to go.

Beyond that, though, apparently disagreeing is not "legitimate," so, have fun with that.

Wasn't really talking about your post friend. But perhaps I misspoke. By legitimate I meant "analytical reasons why these chain of events do or don't make sense." Just by reading the comic for so long I can sort of tell what is or is not in character for our heroes and thinking about to the end, these just seemed like a logical chain of events to me. I guess I was just expecting a more seasoned discussion and ended up with nothing, but that's on me I suppose.

[Quild]

I believe that the Order will realize that it's not Durkon when HPoH will bring death & destruction to the dwarven lands.

[recluso]

Roy's usefulness is already in doubt (reduced to holding a rope)
I think it would be a bit too much for him to lose to all of the order.
Would Rich be able to reestablish Roy as a hero?
I expect more spotlight for Roy coming so his intellect can be redeemed.

> Roy will destroy Durkula and then admit to Belkar
> he was right all along as well as recognize and
> praise his usefulness before passing.

This sounds as an good arc ending.

Elan already had his great moment calling Julio Scoundrél.
If he overhears, the proper trope would of course be to inform the others too late.

Recluso

[brian 333]

It is my belief that Belkar will be turned into a vampire spawn and killed when Durkula forces his minion into the sun without his protections. This will lead to Roy's discovery, through attempting to find the missing Belkar, to conclude that Durkula was the last to see the halfling, and after many long, angst-filled panels of denial, Roy will conclude that Durkula isn't Durkon any more.

[Ettina]

Elan will be the next member to find out. He'll hear something he shouldn't have and that'll convince him. A nice touch of irony to the stupidity of villains announcing their evil plans aloud. Also a nice opportunity to reveal Hel's scheme to the audience. Look at that, two reveals with one stone. Anyway, Elan will run to tell Roy and the fool won't believe him because Elan didn't see with his own eyes or have any physical proof. Roy will brush the whole thing off as Elan hearing things and Elan will join Belkar's cause. Two down.

The same Elan who didn't realize Tarquin was evil? The same Elan who didn't realize Haley had a crush on him?

No way he'll figure it out that easily. Even if he did hear something, he'll deny it until Durkula literally attacks the rest of the party in front of him.

[Killer Angel]

The same Elan who didn't realize Tarquin was evil? The same Elan who didn't realize Haley had a crush on him?

That would be a nice reversal of our expectations, though.

[Origamite]

It is my belief that Belkar will be turned into a vampire spawn and killed when Durkula forces his minion into the sun without his protections. This will lead to Roy's discovery, through attempting to find the missing Belkar, to conclude that Durkula was the last to see the halfling, and after many long, angst-filled panels of denial, Roy will conclude that Durkula isn't Durkon any more.
Interesting thought-I like the idea. I think Roy might go from annoyed that Belkar's missing to frustrated to worried to having some proof, like if Durkula misstated what his alibi was when Belkar went missing. I also think Bloodfeast and Mr. Scruffy will have something to do with it, almost like Belkar's ranger abilities finally being used.

[RighteousWarior]

Anything could happen. They may run into someone that could resurrect Durkon right off the bat and he'll have to bail because the undead durkon doesn't want to die.

Or maybe they find out and stop him straightaway, but maybe something keep Durkon from getting resurrected. Some dark godly power or such.

The most likely scenario though it that everyone finds out and tells Roy but Roy doesn't believe them until it's too late. Then Roy will most likely go on a crusade to find Durkula wherever he may be hiding and transform him back into Durkon to ease his conscience.

Also, this is my first post on the boards even though I've been following the comic a while. Hi, guys!

[GAAD]

We need to have a Durkula Awareness Monthtm to rectify this.

Who wants black wristbands!

[zinycor]

i think durkula will be so bored on the dwarven lands that he will reveal himself.

[theNater]

'Couple major problems with this theory.

Anyway, Elan will run to tell Roy and the fool won't believe him because Elan didn't see with his own eyes or have any physical proof. Roy will brush the whole thing off as Elan hearing things and Elan will join Belkar's cause. Two down.

Elan will of course tell Haley and she will of course believe him. Three down.
Roy doesn't believe Belkar because Belkar is untrustworthy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0729.html). Elan is trustworthy, so Roy will believe that Elan is accurately reporting what Elan thinks occurred. He may think Elan misheard or misunderstood something that happened, but if he can't come up with an explanation that mollifies Haley, he'll investigate further. So either Haley and Roy learn together here, or they together believe it's still Durkon.

Perhaps amidst a battle, Durkula will make a crucial magical error; an error no Lawful Good cleric could make. Vaarsuvius and his/her vast intellect will register the mistake and tell Roy immediately rather than withhold information as in the past.
Vaarsuvius' vast intellect does not extend to a familiarity with clerical magic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0650.html).

However, the Fiends will anticipate Roy will believe V and withhold her/his soul again. This necessary lag in time will be just what Roy needs to seed denial into his brain. V will tell him and he'll will have no reason to doubt it now. Why should he? V is calculating, V is logical, V wouldn't say Durkon is a vampire unless Durkon was a vampire. But why would V wait to tell Roy? He/she told Roy about the planet in the rift during Tarquin's attack, why wait around this time?
Being without a soul isn't exactly subtle (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0897.html), and "I was unconscious" is an excellent answer to the question of "why didn't you say something".

[Onyavar]

[TL but did read] And that is how I see it happening.

TL;DR - Belkar convinces Elan, Haley, V, and finally Roy in that order.

The biggest flaw in your theory is that it is too involved and too detailed. I counterpredict two things:
- that not even 50% of your prediction will occur as you described. (nearly sure in my opinion)
- that the true evil not-Durkon identity of HoH is revealed with the whole group present, and Durkon will not return to the living before at least 100 strips from now (of course, anything can happen, but the less detailed you do your prophesies, the more likely they will come true. :smallamused:)

V already is aware of Durkon's untrustworthiness. Roy doubts, but was recently reassured. We don't know about Haley's feelings yet, afair. Only Elan seems currently being restlessly persuaded.

A word on Belkar: He was never the guy for team work. He is currently turning go... less evil. It would be boring if he'd just be a good teammate now. No, instead he is still a pain in the ass BECAUSE he is turning goo... less evil. Than Durkon, at least.
Belkar is pretty often "the foil", as Tarquin put it. He is comedy gold, as Belkar bosted to Shojo. But to be honest: The old Belkar/V rivalry revolving around the "Incident" was old and boring. The old Roy/Belkar rivalry revolving around Belkar challenging Roy's ability to lead was also boring. But the Belkar/Durkon rivalry was pretty lame before, because Durkon rarely stroke back. This is now spiced up and should be played for laughs and tears, for a long time.

[evileeyore]

Belkar is obviously aware already and that's our link to the inevitable reveal to the rest of the party that Durkula is indeed a bloodsucking abomination and not our good pal Durkon.
Point of contention:

They already know he's a bloodsucking abomination*. What they think however is that this bloodsucking abomination is willing to act in a similar manner as "their old friend Durkon" since this world is where he keeps all his stuff.

Basically they know "Durkula" is evil and will probably turn on them the moment it's in Vampire Durkon's best interest, but right now he's as useful as Belkar usually is. Probably more so.


My bet? Right after they locate a means to rez Durkon, Roy springs his trap, kills the vamp and gets the good old Durkon back. Unfortunately the Vampire will have already vamped the local High Priest of Thor... and since Dwarves are known for not wanting to go above ground it won;t be noticed till it's too late for the Dwarven Lands...



* Vampires aren't Abominations, they're Undead Augmented Humanoids or Undead Monstrous Humanoids... but that's neither here nor there. :smallwink:

[Jay R]

I think we'll get 200-foot-tall flaming letters or something.

Or a pyramid full of mummies will reveal the truth.

Or Thog will swing through a window in a leprechaun suit.

Or Elan will realize that his family isn't really going to work out its problems and have a heartwarming wedding.

Or Vaarsuvius will say the right four words to the right being at the right time for all the wrong reasons.

Or the HPoH will bathe in the OotS' blood with lavender bath gel and a good loofah.

Or ...

Just face it. We've never been any good at predicting how Rich will reveal something.

[evileeyore]

I think we'll get 200-foot-tall flaming letters or something.
I kinda expected something similar to the 200 foot tall flaming letters. But only because a) Haley said it and b) we all knew how cartoonishly mustache-twirlingly evil Tarquin was by then.





But yes, your point is taken. Mr. Burlew is quite good at surprising us.

[Reddish Mage]

He'll see Belkar dying at Durkula's hands or fangs in this case and that'll be all the proof Roy needs. Royal Flush.

Didn't V already mention, after Belkar complained about Durkula trying to kill him, that attempting to kill Belkar isn't proof of anyone being evil?

[Forikroder]

roy is the 2nd most suspicious member of the order after Belkar (wierdly enough) so if Elan could convince haley then he could convince Roy

[Onyavar]

Didn't V already mention, after Belkar complained about Durkula trying to kill him, that attempting to kill Belkar isn't proof of anyone being evil?

Actually, V is well aware that the vampire is evil. V is even currently distrustful of the vampire (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0960.html).

And in light of the fact that V claimed once that V's knowledge of the denizens of the underworld was unmatched (www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0016.html), V might even suspect that the vampire isn't Durkon, only confirmed by Belkar. But as said in 960, the new, think-before-blast-V doesn't dare judge the motives of the vampire. Yet.

[zimmerwald1915]

And in light of the fact that V claimed once that V's knowledge of the denizens of the underworld was unmatched (www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0016.html), V might even suspect that the vampire isn't Durkon, only confirmed by Belkar. But as said in 960, the new, think-before-blast-V doesn't dare judge the motives of the vampire. Yet.
V's knowledge of the denizens of the underworld has been exceeded, at least by Eugene. But technically, it has never been matched :smallamused:

[Tragak]

Honestly, I'm not sure how much this matters :smallwink:

A lot of these discussions see a lot of people insisting "Roy's treatment of Durkula is based on the assumption that he's still Durkon, and Roy would turn on Durkula if he ever learns the truth," but Roy has said that his treatment of Durkula is already based on the assumption that he might not be Durkon, so confirmation of this fact wouldn't actually change anything.

[mouser9169]

The same Elan who didn't realize Tarquin was evil? The same Elan who didn't realize Haley had a crush on him?


No, the Elan who's just gone through tremendous growth of character through the Girard's Illusion scene. It would be terrible if Elan had all that character growth and it _didn't_ manifest in how perceptive he is. Even Redcloak (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0827.html) has demonstrated that.

We're way past due to have Belkar take "his last breath ever". I think that event and Durkula's reveal will be one and the same - they're just happening too close together to not be related somehow. My personal guess was that Belkar would "live on" as a vampire (not needing to breathe), but what we've learned about what vampires really are makes me doubt that now.

[theNater]

Honestly, I'm not sure how much this matters :smallwink:

A lot of these discussions see a lot of people insisting "Roy's treatment of Durkula is based on the assumption that he's still Durkon, and Roy would turn on Durkula if he ever learns the truth," but Roy has said that his treatment of Durkula is already based on the assumption that he might not be Durkon, so confirmation of this fact wouldn't actually change anything.
It would also be confirmation that Durkula has been lying to the party, which changes the dynamic somewhat. Even so, that wouldn't make immediate staking reasonable.

[Jay R]

I suspect that we will continue to drift close to the revelation, but not quite get there, because that sets up lots of cool intra-party friction to write about. I'm always up for some good making-Belkar-jump-off-the-ship slapstick.

Eventually, some incredible new thing none of us thought about in advance will explode the High Priest's cover in a suitably dramatic way, at exactly the right time for maximum party difficulty and challenge.

Something completely unpredictable - Redcloak tries to control the vampire, not realizing that there are two different minds involved, and accidentally frees Durkon, or some such.

[martianmister]

There will be no reveal. He'll die as a martyr.

[Jay R]

There will be no reveal. He'll die as a martyr.

He ... already did.

[martianmister]

He ... already did.

He'll die twice.

[Gusion]

Vaarsuvius I admit is a bit trickier. I don't quite know how he/she will find out exactly, but he/she is the crucial piece required to checkmate the King. Perhaps amidst a battle, Durkula will make a crucial magical error; an error no Lawful Good cleric could make.

Everyone already knows and accepts that Durkula is Evil.

V has probably already started memorizing a spell selection to be prepared for a potential altercation with a vampire. Being prepared comes naturally.

Of course, I think that V probably doesn't care who Durkula worships. What matters is if Durkula will impede in V's mission. If Hel is just out to spite Thor somehow, that inherently isn't V's problem. If Hel's plan also impedes V's plan... then V cares.

[Edit: Also, by "caring" I mean... "Greater Dispel Magic! Sunburst!"]

[Snails]

I believe that the Order will realize that it's not Durkon when HPoH will bring death & destruction to the dwarven lands.

I feel that such is likely. HPoH and Hel seem to have somewhat concrete secret plans where some degree of haste in the near term is desirable. At some point, the Order is no longer a significant asset, while they are still strong enough to get lucky and win a direct confrontation. The HPoH has a half-baked excuse in hand: "You all save the world, because I urgently need to help my homeland with ___________". The HPoH, being not particularly people savvy, could easily misplay that.

[Snails]

General comment: Do not underestimate the Giant's skill as a writer. He knows how to feed you enough hints to help you get in the right vicinity, and enough subtlety that he throws wonderful well motivated curveballs into the mix.

I nailed about 75% of the details, on the nose, about Malack's vampirism approximately a million years before anyone else did. And the remaining 25% of my predictions were about 180 degrees wrong, wonderfully so.

[RighteousWarior]

General comment: Do not underestimate the Giant's skill as a writer. He knows how to feed you enough hints to help you get in the right vicinity, and enough subtlety that he throws wonderful well motivated curveballs into the mix.

I nailed about 75% of the details, on the nose, about Malack's vampirism approximately a million years before anyone else did. And the remaining 25% of my predictions were about 180 degrees wrong, wonderfully so.

I've had my share of predictions come true in the comic(most of which were undocumented). I have to hand it to Rich, he really set everything up for an awesome book six. Durkon as a vampire, Roy being aware of V's actions. Belkar still trying to put up a facade of "character growth".

I just hope we get something as awesome as the Roy vs Thog battle was. I think I've read that more than anything.

I stick by my earlier predictions for Durkula, mostly because one has already come half-true.

[Darth Paul]

Belkar still trying to put up a facade of "character growth".



I wonder if Belkar's "fake character growth" becoming real (which I think is happening, no matter what) doesn't foreshadow in some way what the ultimate resolution of the HPoH's story will be.

Yes, the "evil creature turning good" is trite and cliched, but when written well, it is also moving. Also, this one has the real Durkon working on him from within. Is there not a possibility of the HPoH allying with Durkon and the Order, once he is made to realize that the whole world may be at stake?

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I wonder if Belkar's "fake character growth" becoming real (which I think is happening, no matter what) doesn't foreshadow in some way what the ultimate resolution of the HPoH's story will be.

Yes, the "evil creature turning good" is trite and cliched, but when written well, it is also moving. Also, this one has the real Durkon working on him from within. Is there not a possibility of the HPoH allying with Durkon and the Order, once he is made to realize that the whole world may be at stake?

I think his loyalty to Hel would make that very difficult. Clearly, as her Cleric, he has devoted himself to her, and since he is most likely a Lawful guy he probably follows her orders very willingly. Some of the things he's said earlier also make it seem that he believes that Hel has very good reasons for what she's done.

[Gusion]

It would also be confirmation that Durkula has been lying to the party, which changes the dynamic somewhat. Even so, that wouldn't make immediate staking reasonable.

Why, exactly, is it not a "reasonable" act to stake him?

[theNater]

Why, exactly, is it not a "reasonable" act to stake him?
Because lying doesn't warrant a lethal response, and that's the only thing the party would know Durkula to be guilty of.

[Gusion]

Because lying doesn't warrant a lethal response, and that's the only thing the party would know Durkula to be guilty of.

Aside from being an embodiment of pure negative energy, of course.

I think there are occasions that lying does warrant a lethal response - because of what the truth is. Hypothetically, let's say it is, "Oh, yeah, I'm actually a vampire of Hel who is here to destroy all the dwarven lands and then you guys. But it would be totally unreasonable for you to attack me now because I haven't done anything against you yet."

Personally, I think staking a vampire is pretty much always (in the D&D sense of always) a reasonable act. That doesn't mean it is moral - just that someone had an understandable reason to do so. Nor does that mean I necessary agree with the reason, just that I can see why they did it.

That said, in a D&D universe I would immediately stake any vampire I saw unless I was specifically trying to become a vampire myself and was there to become her thrall. 99% of the time you'll end up dead (or undead) otherwise. I think that makes it "reasonable" to do it.

[theNater]

I think there are occasions that lying does warrant a lethal response - because of what the truth is. Hypothetically, let's say it is, "Oh, yeah, I'm actually a vampire of Hel who is here to destroy all the dwarven lands and then you guys. But it would be totally unreasonable for you to attack me now because I haven't done anything against you yet."
Learning that someone is lying does not automatically mean learning what the truth is. If they do learn that Durkula intends to bring the world to ruin, then they absolutely have reason to resort to violence. But merely learning that Durkula is not Durkon is not the same thing.


Personally, I think staking a vampire is pretty much always (in the D&D sense of always) a reasonable act. That doesn't mean it is moral - just that someone had an understandable reason to do so. Nor does that mean I necessary agree with the reason, just that I can see why they did it.
By that definition of reasonable, every murder is reasonable. Xykon sending goblins through the gate (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0097.html), for example. I don't agree with killing people to relieve boredom, but it's pretty clear that's why he did it.


That said, in a D&D universe I would immediately stake any vampire I saw unless I was specifically trying to become a vampire myself and was there to become her thrall. 99% of the time you'll end up dead (or undead) otherwise.
That is not how Evil works in D&D. Even Evil creatures still need a reason to kill; it's just that they're willing to kill for convenience or entertainment. Vampires usually kill for food, and kill humans because they are readily available(convenience) or particularly tasty(subcategory of entertainment). There's no reason a vampire would go after you, personally, if there are tastier or easier to get humans around.

[Gusion]

By that definition of reasonable, every murder is reasonable. Xykon sending goblins through the gate (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0097.html), for example. I don't agree with killing people to relieve boredom, but it's pretty clear that's why he did it.

Indeed, which was really my point. "Reasonable" is used by society to determine sanity vs insanity. "Moral" and "Legal" are different constructs.


That is not how Evil works in D&D. Even Evil creatures still need a reason to kill; it's just that they're willing to kill for convenience or entertainment. Vampires usually kill for food, and kill humans because they are readily available(convenience) or particularly tasty(subcategory of entertainment).

You're generalizing a bit what I said. I don't lump all evil aligned creatures together, nor does D&D. I said vampires specifically, you generalized that to imply I'm talking about all evil. All vampires are evil but not all evil creatures are vampires.

Nonetheless, if you're go argue that all killing has a reason then by your own logic it would be reasonable to stake Durkula.


There's no reason a vampire would go after you, personally, if there are tastier or easier to get humans around.

I don't understand how you can make a sweeping statement like that. Perhaps he thinks that specific individual is a threat. Or looks funny. Or hates the football jersey he's wearing. Vampires attack based on an individualized priority set, neither of us can apply one general set to their target list. (Or, to bring this to OOTS, maybe Durkula would attack V first as the biggest threat. Or maybe Roy because he believes taking out the leader will cause the rest to run. Or maybe he will be so full of himself that he kills Belkar first just out of spite.)

[theNater]

Indeed, which was really my point. "Reasonable" is used by society to determine sanity vs insanity. "Moral" and "Legal" are different constructs.
In English, "reasonable" is also used to mean "not excessive". Killing someone for lying is unreasonable in that it is excessive. Killing someone simply for being powered by negative energy is similarly excessive.


You're generalizing a bit what I said. I don't lump all evil aligned creatures together, nor does D&D. I said vampires specifically, you generalized that to imply I'm talking about all evil. All vampires are evil but not all evil creatures are vampires.
Anything true of all Evil creatures is still true of Evil vampires. All Evil creatures, vampires included, need a reason to kill.


I don't understand how you can make a sweeping statement like that. Perhaps he thinks that specific individual is a threat. Or looks funny. Or hates the football jersey he's wearing. Vampires attack based on an individualized priority set, neither of us can apply one general set to their target list.
A human could attack anyone on those same criteria. If living in a D&D world, would you also kill all humans on sight?


(Or, to bring this to OOTS, maybe Durkula would attack V first as the biggest threat. Or maybe Roy because he believes taking out the leader will cause the rest to run. Or maybe he will be so full of himself that he kills Belkar first just out of spite.)
There is no indication that Durkula intends to directly attack the members of the Order at any point. We know that he intends to bring the world to ruin, which is something the Order will doubtlessly try to stop if they discover it, but it is possible that his plans involve separating from the Order before making any overt moves towards that intention.

[Gusion]

In English, "reasonable" is also used to mean "not excessive". Killing someone for lying is unreasonable in that it is excessive. Killing someone simply for being powered by negative energy is similarly excessive.

A being of wholly negative energy that is shown to be lying about who/what they are. We simply disagree if it is reasonable or not. Which is fine, there are very few circumstances in the universe in which everyone would agree it is okay to destroy anything.


Anything true of all Evil creatures is still true of Evil vampires. All Evil creatures, vampires included, need a reason to kill.

If "they feel like it" counts, sure. But you're arguing against a strawman you created through an over-generalization..


A human could attack anyone on those same criteria. If living in a D&D world, would you also kill all humans on sight?

False equivalency. Undead are not equal to the living. Something Tsukiko didn't get either.

[theNater]

A being of wholly negative energy that is shown to be lying about who/what they are. We simply disagree if it is reasonable or not. Which is fine, there are very few circumstances in the universe in which everyone would agree it is okay to destroy anything.



If "they feel like it" counts, sure. But you're arguing against a strawman you created through an over-generalization..



False equivalency. Undead are not equal to the living. Something Tsukiko didn't get either.
Is it your claim that vampires are more likely to kill someone because "they feel like it" than other Evil creatures are?

If so, what is your evidence for this claim? If not, what is the significance of the difference between vampires and non-vampires?

[Gusion]

Is it your claim that vampires are more likely to kill someone because "they feel like it" than other Evil creatures are?

If so, what is your evidence for this claim? If not, what is the significance of the difference between vampires and non-vampires?

Non-sentient undead kill because they essentially "feel like it" unless ordered to do otherwise. Comes with being undead. Skeletons, zombies, etc. One could argue, of course, they don't actually *feel* - it is more of a compulsion from being driven by negative energy. They aren't doing it to necessarily consume in order to remain in existence. They are evil, while non-sentient creatures are almost always* neutral.

Sentient undead kill for a variety of reasons. Unlike you did above, I don't ascribe a particular logic to how they make their target list (although speaking of sourcing, I'd be interested in where you got that from.) That said, they are still undead. They still have the same inherent drive because they're still negative energy but they are capable of choosing to follow a more advanced path to that end.

*not counting fiendish/celestial templates, etc.

[Jay R]

There's no reason a vampire would go after you, personally, if there are tastier or easier to get humans around.

So it's vitally important not to use a tasty-smelling shampoo.

[theNater]

Sentient undead kill for a variety of reasons. Unlike you did above, I don't ascribe a particular logic to how they make their target list (although speaking of sourcing, I'd be interested in where you got that from.)
There's a few sources, but I think the one most relevant to this discussion is the comic strip The Order of the Stick, written by Rich Burlew. It's still ongoing, but to date we've met three free-willed sentient undead. All of them seem very human-like in their reasoning. Certainly, none of them have displayed the inherent antipathy towards life that you describe. One(and only one) has been known to kill for entertainment, but my understanding is that he also tended to do that while alive, and he's not significantly more likely to do it than a living halfling we've also met.


So it's vitally important not to use a tasty-smelling shampoo.
Yes, but you have to account for vampiric tastes; as long as you're not bathing in the blood of your enemies you're probably okay.

[Gusion]

There's a few sources, but I think the one most relevant to this discussion is the comic strip The Order of the Stick, written by Rich Burlew. It's still ongoing, but to date we've met three free-willed sentient undead. All of them seem very human-like in their reasoning. Certainly, none of them have displayed the inherent antipathy towards life that you describe. One(and only one) has been known to kill for entertainment, but my understanding is that he also tended to do that while alive, and he's not significantly more likely to do it than a living halfling we've also met.

You're now arguing against yourself.

If they're so "free willed" - which I don't necessarily agree with - that would be evidence against your prior statement, "Vampires usually kill for food, and kill humans because they are readily available(convenience) or particularly tasty(subcategory of entertainment). There's no reason a vampire would go after you, personally, if there are tastier or easier to get humans around."

Regardless, there is not enough evidence for you to make the claims you're making in this post either. There isn't enough data on Durkula yet, likely on purpose for the story. Malack worshiped death - literally - even though Giant was also hiding the fact of him being undead from the readers on purpose. And Xykon... well, even if he was the exact same before undeath it wouldn't prove your point. It would only demonstrate insufficient evidence if I was trying to prove something by his actions (which, for the record, I'm not.)

[theNater]

If they're so "free willed" - which I don't necessarily agree with - that would be evidence against your prior statement, "Vampires usually kill for food, and kill humans because they are readily available(convenience) or particularly tasty(subcategory of entertainment). There's no reason a vampire would go after you, personally, if there are tastier or easier to get humans around."
The word "usually" indicates a general propensity, not an inviolable law. Example: dwarves usually use axes and hammers rather than swords and spears. Note how dwarves still have free will, despite this propensity.


Regardless, there is not enough evidence for you to make the claims you're making in this post either. There isn't enough data on Durkula yet, likely on purpose for the story. Malack worshiped death - literally - even though Giant was also hiding the fact of him being undead from the readers on purpose. And Xykon... well, even if he was the exact same before undeath it wouldn't prove your point. It would only demonstrate insufficient evidence if I was trying to prove something by his actions (which, for the record, I'm not.)
If Xykon was exactly the same before undeath, it would mean that being undead does not inherently cause a compulsion to kill the living. Since that is my point, it totally would prove it.

Malack worshiped Nergal, a god of Death and Destruction, not death itself. Note that a cleric can worship a cause-if Malack wanted to worship death directly, he could have. We also know that Malack had extended contact with the Vector Legion, and there are no indications that he ever tried to kill any of them. This again suggests no particular compulsion to kill the living.

While we haven't spent much time with Durkula, we have actually been inside his head. Even there, we see no evidence of murderous compulsions or non-human thought processes.

[Gusion]

The word "usually" indicates a general propensity, not an inviolable law. Example: dwarves usually use axes and hammers rather than swords and spears. Note how dwarves still have free will, despite this propensity.

Just admit that, "There's no reason a vampire would go after you, personally, if there are tastier or easier to get humans around" was a stronger statement than you intended to make and be done with it.


If Xykon was exactly the same before undeath, it would mean that being undead does not inherently cause a compulsion to kill the living. Since that is my point, it totally would prove it.

Except it doesn't. That's not how logic works. If you have a +2 insight bonus and get another +2 insight bonus, that doesn't mean the second one didn't exist. If Xykon already had a compulsion to kill the living before becoming undead it doesn't mean anything. I never said that being undead was the only way to have a compulsion... some people have that compulsion too. I'm only arguing that all undead do although some have more elaborate plans to that end than others - but that's NOT the same as free will.

The analogy here is that I'm claiming I have a bag that if you put any rock into it, the rock turns to gold. You're putting in gold and when you take it out it is still gold... then claiming my bag doesn't work.


This again suggests no particular compulsion to kill the living.

*shrugs* it shows a lack of evidence. We have no idea what Malack's grand schemes were, nor what directions Nergal provided him. Giant purposefully hid Malack's true nature to improve the storytelling.


While we haven't spent much time with Durkula, we have actually been inside his head. Even there, we see no evidence of murderous compulsions or non-human thought processes.

"If I weren't composed entirely of negative energy I would yarf." is such a human thing to think. How silly of me.

That aside, we know he has a plan that ends up destroying his dwarven homeland. He's not doing it to feed. That's pretty much a sentient way of completing a murderous compulsion as I can think of right now.

(Edited to remove a bad analogy.)

[Jasdoif]

If they're so "free willed" - which I don't necessarily agree with -Vampires are free-willed; Malack had free will and there is only one way that vampirism works.

[theNater]

Just admit that, "There's no reason a vampire would go after you, personally, if there are tastier or easier to get humans around" was a stronger statement than you intended to make and be done with it.
I might, if it were true. However, I'm sufficiently confident that context will clue enough people in to the fact that it's a generalization, rather than a universal truth, that I don't feel any compulsion to cater to people who don't see that, for whatever reason.

Except it doesn't. That's not how logic works. If somebody is already anything... +2 dodge bonus... if they get another +2 dodge bonus just because that it didn't stake doesn't mean the second +2 dodge bonus didn't happen. If Xykon already had a compulsion to kill the living before becoming undead it doesn't mean anything. I never said that being undead was the only way to have a compulsion... some people have that compulsion too. I'm only arguing that all undead do although some have more elaborate plans to that end than others - but that's NOT the same as free will.
If someone gets two +2 dodge bonuses, we will expect them to dodge more often than someone with only one such bonus. Similarly, we would expect someone with two murderous compulsions to kill more often than someone with only one, rather than approximately as often.

*shrugs* it shows a lack of evidence. We have no idea what Malack's grand schemes were, nor what directions Nergal provided him. Giant purposefully hid Malack's true nature to improve the storytelling.

...

That aside, we know he has a plan that ends up destroying his dwarven homeland. He's not doing it to feed. That's pretty much a sentient way of completing a murderous compulsion as I can think of right now.
You seem to be having some difficulty with the nature of clerics. Plans provided by Nergal and Hel are not compulsions from negative energy, they are directives from a diety to a follower. We'd expect to see such plans in any cleric of Nergal or Hel, living or dead.

"If I weren't composed entirely of negative energy I would yarf." is such a human thing to think. How silly of me.
While you seem to be agreeing, I suspect sarcasm. In case that is sarcasm, let me link you to a the tvtropes page Sickeningly Sweethearts (WARNING: tvtropes link) (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SickeninglySweethearts), where a number of humans react to displays of affection by describing revulsion, up to and including a desire to vomit.

[Gusion]

Vampires are free-willed; Malack had free will and there is only one way that vampirism works.

"Free will" was perhaps an in-artful choice of terms. I think Giant and I mean slightly different things. I'm saying if you're composed of pure negative/positive energy, you are not the blank slate that philosophically naturally neutral beings who make choices to choose their alignment are.

I do think that both Malack and Durkula (well, the vampire inside of them) have the ability to make choices.

I'm totally stealing this from ... A Wrinkle in Time I think... but the idea is that lives are a haiku and you can make it say whatever you want but you're still confined to the structure. That's sentient undead to me - they are confined to the structure of being pure negative energy.


I might, if it were true...

Uh-huh.


If someone gets two +2 dodge bonuses, we will expect them to dodge more often than someone with only one such bonus.

I'm unsure what royal "we" you're referring to here, but have you actually played D&D? I'm gathering you haven't if you don't understand what "buffs not stacking" means. That's fine if you haven't, of course it isn't a pre-req for enjoying the comic... but it seems odd for you to argue about this without understanding a fundamental concept of the game.

[littlebum2002]

I'm unsure what royal "we" you're referring to here, but have you actually played D&D? I'm gathering you haven't if you don't understand what "buffs not stacking" means. That's fine if you haven't, of course it isn't a pre-req for enjoying the comic... but it seems odd for you to argue about this without understanding a fundamental concept of the game.


Actually, his knowledge of the rules is better than yours.

Dodge bonuses and circumstance bonuses however, do stack with one another unless otherwise specified.

[gooddragon1]

I think the cleric who got controlled will break out of it and inform the party somehow.

[Kulan-Gath]

I don't know how Durkula's evil nature will be revealed.

I am pretty sure Durkon will use the fact that Durkula lacks the empathy/intuition (WIS) to see connections between his memories, but I cherish the fact that I have no idea how.

My bet it is that things will get very interesting when we get to Kraagor's Gate (and it will last at least that long because resolving it earlier does make it a speedbump rather than a key dramatic hook). The main reasons I think it will get interesting at Kraagor's Gate are two things:

1. Lien
2. O-Chul

They both went ahead of the OotS and will both be there when the party arrive. They are Paladins, so that's going to be awkward for the presence of Durkula. Also key to this is that Lien is the poster-girl for "Good Not Stupid". Admittedly Roy is intelligent, but Lien isn't likely to share Roy's loyalty/guilt blindspot in relation to his friend.

Besides, they may have enough Lore to know about the whole soul issue (but probably not as they are not Clerics).

[Jay R]

Yes, but you have to account for vampiric tastes; as long as you're not bathing in the blood of your enemies you're probably okay.

That must be what the lavender bath gel and a good loofah (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0103.html) are for.

This thread is a success! We've figured out one of the Giant's unrevealed plot threads!

Hooray!

[Gusion]

Actually, his knowledge of the rules is better than yours.

I was wrong to use dodge, as typically it does stack. In my above example I was specifically citing that it didn't... but it was a bad analogy as it led down this rabbit hole.

I'll go fix it. My underlying point remains the same.

[Lavennin]

Doesn't it depend on what the OOTS learns from exposing the lie? Having someone composed purely of negative energy in your friend's body is one thing, knowing that being has trapped your friend's soul and intends to destroy thousands of lives is another. In D&D universes good characters tend to fight vampires on sight, but OOTS didn't, and they may as well hesitate to do so even after learning the truth, depending on which truth they learn. It's possible that Durkula could convince them he shares their goal and since there is no way to bring Durkon back, staking Durkula would mean losing their team cleric. However, this is not how I believe the story will go, simply because we already have Belkar.

[theNater]

Actually, his knowledge of the rules is better than yours.
Thanks, littlebum2002!


That must be what the lavender bath gel and a good loofah (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0103.html) are for.

This thread is a success! We've figured out one of the Giant's unrevealed plot threads!

Hooray!
I guess we can add "afraid of vampires" to the list of things we know about the MitD.:smallbiggrin:


Doesn't it depend on what the OOTS learns from exposing the lie? Having someone composed purely of negative energy in your friend's body is one thing, knowing that being has trapped your friend's soul and intends to destroy thousands of lives is another. In D&D universes good characters tend to fight vampires on sight, but OOTS didn't, and they may as well hesitate to do so even after learning the truth, depending on which truth they learn. It's possible that Durkula could convince them he shares their goal and since there is no way to bring Durkon back, staking Durkula would mean losing their team cleric. However, this is not how I believe the story will go, simply because we already have Belkar.
Absolutely. If nothing else, the fact that Durkula currently resides on this word gives him some incentive to keep it from being totally obliterated. This makes an alliance possible, even if it would only be temporary.