So, Rich liked The Killing Joke eh?

[SamEskenazi]

So, Strip 1007: Durkon = Joker confirmed?

[137beth]

Except the day he was exiled didn't cause Durkon to deteriorate until he was an insane supervillain. Only turning in to a vampire did that.

[Grey Watcher]

I dunno, I think this strip and TKJ are talking about two different things:

In The Killing Joke, the Joker's talking about how one particularly grueling event (or series of events) can drive your crazy. The source of the events is external and mostly, if not entirely, beyond your control. ("brother gunned down by the mob"). Yes, the insanity part is about what's inside, but his point is that what's inside doesn't matter: present someone with extreme enough stress, and they'll abandon reason, sanity, hope, honor, kindness, etc.

What the High Priest of Hel is driving at here is that you are defined by your worst responses. The source of the events (or even just the thoughts) is internal. He's saying what's inside is ALL that matters: it doesn't matter that no one heard or acted upon you yelling about how you wished eternal dishonor and suffering on everyone you used to know and it doesn't matter that you've strived to be much better in all the long years since; you thought it and even said it aloud, so that instinct is in there.

(Disclaimer: I don't agree with either of those, but that's the point I see each villain trying to make.)

[Shekinah]

I dunno, I think this strip and TKJ are talking about two different things:

In The Killing Joke, the Joker's talking about how one particularly grueling event (or series of events) can drive your crazy. The source of the events is external and mostly, if not entirely, beyond your control. ("brother gunned down by the mob"). Yes, the insanity part is about what's inside, but his point is that what's inside doesn't matter: present someone with extreme enough stress, and they'll abandon reason, sanity, hope, honor, kindness, etc.

What the High Priest of Hel is driving at here is that you are defined by your worst responses. The source of the events (or even just the thoughts) is internal. He's saying what's inside is ALL that matters: it doesn't matter that no one heard or acted upon you yelling about how you wished eternal dishonor and suffering on everyone you used to know and it doesn't matter that you've strived to be much better in all the long years since; you thought it and even said it aloud, so that instinct is in there.

(Disclaimer: I don't agree with either of those, but that's the point I see each villain trying to make.)

Now I feel silly for the Killing Joke reply I made in the discussion thread.

Makes me wonder what the trickster god would say about either of those things, though.

[The_Weirdo]

Now I feel silly for the Killing Joke reply I made in the discussion thread.

Makes me wonder what the trickster god would say about either of those things, though.

If you define tricksters as Chaotic or individualistic... Well, the second one would be, for an individualistic person, perfectly justified. What they did to him was very much beyond any reasonable limit and it's perfectly understandable for him to (want to) lash out, not due to his own nature, but due to what the group did to him.

The first one would likely be seen by someone individualistic as idiotic: for someone Chaotic, what's inside does, very much, matter, and there is no guarantee at all that someone will abandon all sanity due to stress.

[factotum]

Except the day he was exiled didn't cause Durkon to deteriorate until he was an insane supervillain. Only turning in to a vampire did that.

Except turning into a vampire didn't do that--the Durkon held prisoner in the vampire's head appears to be more or less the same as the living Durkon was. HPoH is not Durkon and never was, whatever he might say about having been created specifically to fit Durkon's body.

[johnbragg]

Except turning into a vampire didn't do that--the Durkon held prisoner in the vampire's head appears to be more or less the same as the living Durkon was. HPoH is not Durkon and never was, whatever he might say about having been created specifically to fit Durkon's body.

What HPOH says is "to fit perfectly in the hole in your heart."

Usual disclaimers about whether the statement can be taken as canon for the nature of vampirism in OOTS. (At least until confirmed by Word of Giant) HPOH does not have unlimited knowledge, may be speaking metaphorically, may be lying for evil purposes, etc. Also, HPOH may not be a bog-standard vampire, he may be a unique creation by Hel for particular purposes.

But the testimony of HPOH is that, at least in his case, a vampire was created based on the "hole in Durkon's heart."

[Reddish Mage]

What HPOH says is "to fit perfectly in the hole in your heart."

Usual disclaimers about whether the statement can be taken as canon for the nature of vampirism in OOTS. (At least until confirmed by Word of Giant) HPOH does not have unlimited knowledge, may be speaking metaphorically, may be lying for evil purposes, etc. Also, HPOH may not be a bog-standard vampire, he may be a unique creation by Hel for particular purposes.

But the testimony of HPOH is that, at least in his case, a vampire was created based on the "hole in Durkon's heart."


Oh no, Durkula said rather specifically that "Fun fact: when a vampire springs into existence," and also that "who knows?, some other vampire spirit who was made-to-order from another dwarf may have done as Roy suggested..."

Durkula is saying that Vampire spirits experience and are shaped by their host's worst memories. This fits perfectly with the RAW that vampires have "free-will" (as Roy mentioned) and the narrative that Durkula is spinning that he, "Durkon" hates dwarves and wants revenge.

[Braininthejar2]

What I thought about was the Hun - P'o thing from Kindred of the East

[Psyren]

We definitely know Darkon isn't omniscient since he didn't see the connection between the two memories. Also the "breathing" incident. He's smart, but he can in fact miss out on the subtleties of being alive, and that I think will end up being part of his downfall.

[rodneyAnonymous]

I am frustrated by the attitude that if two themes are similar, one must have been influenced by the other.

[Legato Endless]

I am frustrated by the attitude that if two themes are similar, one must have been influenced by the other.

I would be frustrated even if the themes were identical. It's not like Alan Moore was the first person to state this idea.


Oh no, Durkula said rather specifically that "Fun fact: when a vampire springs into existence," and also that "who knows?, some other vampire spirit who was made-to-order from another dwarf may have done as Roy suggested..."

Durkula is saying that Vampire spirits experience and are shaped by their host's worst memories. This fits perfectly with the RAW that vampires have "free-will" (as Roy mentioned) and the narrative that Durkula is spinning that he, "Durkon" hates dwarves and wants revenge.

Not to mention when the first popular theory of the HPOH being somehow unique was brought up, the Giant has denied it. The personality takeover wasn't unique, why would this be? Furthermore, HPOH being a reflection of parts of Durkon enriches the story. His taunting Roy seems kind of pointless if it's all just a lie he made up. There must be something relevant, some grain of truth, or the scene stops framing the characters in the Giant's signature style. It's just some lying monster responding to Roy's heartfelt pleas with gibberish.

[Reddish Mage]

I would be frustrated even if the themes were identical. It's not like Alan Moore was the first person to state this idea.



Not to mention when the first popular theory of the HPOH being somehow unique was brought up, the Giant has denied it. The personality takeover wasn't unique, why would this be? Furthermore, HPOH being a reflection of parts of Durkon enriches the story. His taunting Roy seems kind of pointless if it's all just a lie he made up. There must be something relevant, some grain of truth, or the scene stops framing the characters in the Giant's signature style. It's just some lying monster responding to Roy's heartfelt pleas with gibberish.

Clearly, the vampires story reflects Durkon's experience and understandable reaction to it, that's why it works as a story and strengthens the lie that Roy is fighting "evil Durkon." That there is a story about the vampire literally absorbing the worst parts of Durkon is crap icing on the bull cake.

[Psyren]

I think Darkon was telling the truth about the "worst memories being absorbed first." But the rest of it is definitely crap. "Another vampire would have rejected Hel's plan?" Yeah no, not happening. "You are your worst day, and the rest is a lie?" Darkon might even honestly believe that, but it's definitely not true.

I recall Dumbledore's speech near the end of the second Harry Potter - on the nature of choice. Harry only ended up in Gryffindor because he asked not to be in Slytherin, and that made all the difference in the world. Harry certainly had more than one really bad day, especially when the series got underway - but rather than let those darker experiences control his actions in the present, he still believed in basic capacity of people to do good in the end.

[factotum]

"Another vampire would have rejected Hel's plan?" Yeah no, not happening.

Why not? I remember the Giant explicitly saying in a post on the forums that Malack, for instance, *chose* to worship Nergal--that, despite his vampire spirit being formed in Nergal's halls, he could have easily chosen to worship some other god. That being the case, why assume that Durkula is slavishly following Hel's instructions? He could have chosen differently, just as Malack could have.

Now, I don't really believe that Durkula was specifically created to fit Durkon, though. I think that he was created in the same way any other vampire spirit would be, and that it's the dark memories he absorbed when he entered Durkon's mind that shaped him.

[Swordsmith]

Something must have shaped him... humans are born little lumps unable to even respond with tears, it's days before they figure out how to track the eyeballs of other humans, weeks before that "smile" is anything but gas. Durkula, a fresh minted spirit, is nonetheless a creature with thoughts, opinions, abilities, and even schemes. He got that -somewhere-, be it direct from Hel, or from parts of Durkon, or some combination of the two. Since his creation he has of course had other outside influences and experiences... but his start was not a tabula rasa.

[Ingus]

About vampire creation, I wouldn't give too much credit to HPoH's speech about "Hel custom creation" of vampire spirit.
I'll take it as quasi-true creed, just like Durkon seeing too much into tempests (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0201.html). I'm not saying that all he's saying is a lie, just that he may have transformed the usual vampire spawning process into something explicitly created by Hel, which may be incorrect in the same way it's incorrect that Thor is influencing every tempest.

But to stay on topic...


I am frustrated by the attitude that if two themes are similar, one must have been influenced by the other.

That may be true, but only by the artist's point of view. Telling a story is a process that goes both ways: as for Dante's Divine Comedy (or for Beatles songs, for what may matter) there's lots of people that sees too much into it.
And it's ok. In my opinion, this is really cool too, because readers find a way to tell themselves multiple stories from just one.

In other words, the reference may be intended, subliminal or even unintended (only Giant can tell, but I don't think it really matters), but it's there because the readers see it in there. Or, at least, that's my opinion ;)

[Psyren]

Why not? I remember the Giant explicitly saying in a post on the forums that Malack, for instance, *chose* to worship Nergal--that, despite his vampire spirit being formed in Nergal's halls, he could have easily chosen to worship some other god. That being the case, why assume that Durkula is slavishly following Hel's instructions? He could have chosen differently, just as Malack could have.

Now, I don't really believe that Durkula was specifically created to fit Durkon, though. I think that he was created in the same way any other vampire spirit would be, and that it's the dark memories he absorbed when he entered Durkon's mind that shaped him.

I'd like to see the context for that, link?

This viewpoint doesn't jibe with undead as presented in OotS. Redcloak's "undead are tools" speech, before having Tsukiko's wights eat her, for example.

[factotum]

I'd like to see the context for that, link?

This viewpoint doesn't jibe with undead as presented in OotS. Redcloak's "undead are tools" speech, before having Tsukiko's wights eat her, for example.

The index of the Giant's quotations has it here:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?339912-Vampire-question-settled/page10&p=17331234#post17331234

Also, Redcloak's speech about the undead is hardly an unbiased viewpoint--he has to believe that Xykon is merely a tool that he is using, or else he probably wouldn't sleep well. Not to mention that not all undead are created the same--the undead dragon head created by Darth V definitely had the momma dragon's spirit in it!

[Jasdoif]

The index of the Giant's quotations has it here:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?339912-Vampire-question-settled/page10&p=17331234#post17331234There's another quote that addresses it more directly:


....He would have switched gods because whatever nature-oriented barbarian deity he used to worship no longer granted spells to a vampire that was keeping his former cleric's soul hostage. I suppose, hypothetically, he could have decided to keep worshipping a god who didn't want him and never granted him spells, ignoring the fact that there was another god who did want him and would grant him spells. But he didn't. And maybe, hypothetically, there's another god out there that would accept a vampire cleric other than Nergal, and he could have started worshipping him. But he didn't. He looked at the situation logically and said, "Oh, this must be my rightful place in the universe. Hail Nergal!" and called it a day. That's still free will.

[Dusk Eclipse]

I think Darkon was telling the truth about the "worst memories being absorbed first." But the rest of it is definitely crap. "Another vampire would have rejected Hel's plan?" Yeah no, not happening. "You are your worst day, and the rest is a lie?" Darkon might even honestly believe that, but it's definitely not true.

I recall Dumbledore's speech near the end of the second Harry Potter - on the nature of choice. Harry only ended up in Gryffindor because he asked not to be in Slytherin, and that made all the difference in the world. Harry certainly had more than one really bad day, especially when the series got underway - but rather than let those darker experiences control his actions in the present, he still believed in basic capacity of people to do good in the end.

Well to be fair Harry didn't have a spirit made of pure negative energy living inside him... OK he kind of did, but we have no canon indication of how the Horcrux affected him, we don't even know if it could, after all the only other living being that was a horcrux was a snake and Tom had absolute control over it. Anyway that is a topic for another forum. On topic I think that you are putting too much weight on the "you are your worst day", when I feel that the most important part of that speech comes right after "And that is who I am, your worst day personified."

[Porthos]

I'd like to see the context for that, link?

This viewpoint doesn't jibe with undead as presented in OotS. Redcloak's "undead are tools" speech, before having Tsukiko's wights eat her, for example.

Besides the posts already brought up, I'd like to remind one and all that presuming that Villans Never Lie (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VillainsNeverLie) might not be exactly the, ahem, right thing to do. :smallsmile:

In the case of Redcloak, it's a bit more subtle as Redcloak is lying to himself about the situation. When he mentions Xykon, he all but admits that his supposed control of Xykon is psychological as opposed to overt. Thus he admits that Xykon is free willed, but tries to gloss over that fact by asserting he is still in control of him.

As for the wrights? It's a bit more up in the air, given that their attitudes might simply show that they are under mental domination of another (notwithstanding the fact that Tsukiko shouldn't be able to control so many wrights). Compare the way they acted to the dominated newly vamped "Durkon" for instance.

Or it could just be that this is a way to depict the fact that wrights are far lower down the scale when it comes to intellegent undead. I.e. they are closer to zombies than vampires.

Or it was just funny to see Tsukiko try to act like a mother to her new "babies". Take your pick and mix and match as needed. :smallsmile:

[factotum]

There's another quote that addresses it more directly:

Considering that quote was the Giant responding to my own question on the matter, you'd think I'd have taken the time to find that one instead of going with the first one I found... :smallsigh:

[Psyren]

The index of the Giant's quotations has it here:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?339912-Vampire-question-settled/page10&p=17331234#post17331234

Also, Redcloak's speech about the undead is hardly an unbiased viewpoint--he has to believe that Xykon is merely a tool that he is using, or else he probably wouldn't sleep well. Not to mention that not all undead are created the same--the undead dragon head created by Darth V definitely had the momma dragon's spirit in it!

Thanks for the link - his second quote though indicates that Nergal and Hel may have very different approaches to their followers:



Nergal is not Hel. It is a mistake to think that two different characters—even two gods with the same portfolio—have the same history, disposition, and goals. Do not confuse how Hel is interacting with her cleric (who just happens to be a vampire) with how another god interacts with his cleric (who happens to be a vampire).

So "Malack could freely choose to abandon all of Nergal's goals" still does not mean the same is true for Darkon.

I guess I have trouble imagining that Hel, having finally gotten the one chess piece she always wanted, would have crafted a soul that might have then turned around and said "nah, I just feel like hanging around the desert and drinking peeps., this godsmoot thing sounds way too risky."

I do concede that intelligent undead in general can have more free will than I thought, but not necessarily that that paradigm applies to Darkon. Nergal had no major agenda, more of a long-term goal for his priest like a "I don't really need you to do this, but since you've got eternity to implement it anyway, just put this blood-factory plan somewhere on your to-do list and I'll keep sending the spells, we cool?"

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I'm a little late to this party, but in case anyone wants to look at all the vampire quotes I have the last one in my sig (as "How"). :smallbiggrin:

[Legato Endless]

In other words, the reference may be intended, subliminal or even unintended (only Giant can tell, but I don't think it really matters), but it's there because the readers see it in there. Or, at least, that's my opinion ;)

You're confusing a reference with inspiration. Whatever the intent of the Author, if the work itself doesn't contain the allusion, then it isn't there. A person can take whatever meaning they want from a story, but a reference has to actually exist beyond the person's association.


In the case of Redcloak, it's a bit more subtle as Redcloak is lying to himself about the situation. When he mentions Xykon, he all but admits that his supposed control of Xykon is psychological as opposed to overt. Thus he admits that Xykon is free willed, but tries to gloss over that fact by asserting he is still in control of him.

As for the wrights? It's a bit more up in the air, given that their attitudes might simply show that they are under mental domination of another (notwithstanding the fact that Tsukiko shouldn't be able to control so many wrights). Compare the way they acted to the dominated newly vamped "Durkon" for instance.

Or it could just be that this is a way to depict the fact that wrights are far lower down the scale when it comes to intellegent undead. I.e. they are closer to zombies than vampires.

Or it was just funny to see Tsukiko try to act like a mother to her new "babies". Take your pick and mix and match as needed. :smallsmile:

The nature of weights as a whole is irrelevant to Redcloak's summation on Tsukiko. Redcloak was completely right. Tsukiko's wights were nothing more than tools she used to shore up her own loneliness. She lied to herself, pretending she had loving relationships with creatures she utterly controlled. Redcloak's comment isn't universally true, but it certainly was a perfectly apt conclusion about just how pathetic Tsukiko was.

[Kish]

Thanks for the link - his second quote though indicates that Nergal and Hel may have very different approaches to their followers:



So "Malack could freely choose to abandon all of Nergal's goals" still does not mean the same is true for Darkon.

I guess I have trouble imagining that Hel, having finally gotten the one chess piece she always wanted, would have crafted a soul that might have then turned around and said "nah, I just feel like hanging around the desert and drinking peeps., this godsmoot thing sounds way too risky."
You're still way overestimating how much power Hel had over the personality of the soul she created. "Malack had free will. He was an Evil person," followed by references to both Malack and the High Priest of Hel as clerics (who happen to be [vampires]) really isn't ambiguous, and the fact that Redcloak claims something different--is very important, for what it says about Redcloak, not for what it says about OotS reality.

Or to put it another way, Durkon's soul was presumably created in Thor's hall. So was Hilgya's. And yet only one of those people is a fanatical follower of dwarven tradition, and only the vampire soul created as a funhouse mirror of that person's soul is a fanatical follower of Hel. If Hilgya became a vampire, the vampire's response to the idea of it being her duty to help Hel destroy the world would likely still be "Row-of-asterisks duty."

[137beth]

You're still way overestimating how much power Hel had over the personality of the soul she created. "Malack had free will. He was an Evil person," followed by references to both Malack and the High Priest of Hel as clerics (who happen to be [vampires]) really isn't ambiguous, and the fact that Redcloak claims something different--is very important, for what it says about Redcloak, not for what it says about OotS reality.

Or to put it another way, Durkon's soul was presumably created in Thor's hall. So was Hilgya's. And yet only one of those people is a fanatical follower of dwarven tradition, and only the vampire soul created as a funhouse mirror of that person's soul is a fanatical follower of Hel. If Hilgya became a vampire, the vampire's response to the idea of it being her duty to help Hel destroy the world would likely still be "Row-of-asterisks duty."

I get the feeling that vampirism in the OOTS world doesn't change a character's lawful/chaotic alignment. So, HPoH is as Lawful as Durkon, and a vampire Hilgya would probably be as Chaotic as Hilgya.

[Psyren]

Or to put it another way, Durkon's soul was presumably created in Thor's hall. So was Hilgya's. And yet only one of those people is a fanatical follower of dwarven tradition, and only the vampire soul created as a funhouse mirror of that person's soul is a fanatical follower of Hel. If Hilgya became a vampire, the vampire's response to the idea of it being her duty to help Hel destroy the world would likely still be "Row-of-asterisks duty."

I strongly disagree with this assessment. Both Durkon and Hilgya's lowest moments, at least as far as we saw, are a direct result of Dwarven tradition. So the vampire versions of both of them being willing to set it on fire would make perfect sense. And to be frank, the lawful stupidity of dwarven society (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0084.html) is likely to be a direct cause of every dwarf's lowest moment.

"Ugh, listen to ye, ye sound like one of the humans with their 'if it feels groovy, do it' and their 'inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness.'"

"Happy? HAPPY? What th' heck does happiness to do with being a dwarf??"

[Kish]

And yet the High Priest of Hel is just as dutiful as Durkon was, and is literally prepared to destroy the world and himself with it because Hel said so. Your assumption that this is entirely because he's a vampire and not at all because he's an Awfully Lawful cleric are if anything even more directly contradictory to Rich's words about vampires having free will than Loreweaver's initial statements that Rich wrote those words to address in the first place.

[Psyren]

And yet the High Priest of Hel is just as dutiful as Durkon was, and is literally prepared to destroy the world and himself with it because Hel said so. Your assumption that this is entirely because he's a vampire and not at all because he's an Awfully Lawful cleric are if anything even more directly contradictory to Rich's words about vampires having free will than Loreweaver's initial statements that Rich wrote those words to address in the first place.

Let's assume that you're right, and everything that goes for Nergal vampires goes for Hel vampires too, at least as far as free will goes. I'm merely stating that, even if they do all have total autonomy, Hel was crafty enough to pick one for the job whose most likely choices would best align with her goals. She's already proven to be quite a chessmaster/manipulator; what are the odds that she'd risk her masterstroke gambit pinning all her hopes on a lazy, bloodthirsty or self-serving vampire? Pretty much nil.

The question of his free will then becomes academic; either he can't choose to disobey her ("Service is my sole purpose, my lady"), or he can, but it's simply something he would never willingly do. Either way, the outcome is the same.