*spoilers* So why did Malack vamp Durkon?

[Kruploy]

He knew vampire Durkon would not be the same person as living Durkon so why did he do something that would make replace Durkon with a stranger and make him a prisoner in his own body?

I thought he respected Durkon. Even if he wanted vampire friends, wouldn't it have been more prudent to vamp Belkar and kill/imprison Durkon?

[Quebbster]

Vampire Durkon would be Durkon enough for his purposes, I suspect. The menories are still there, and the alignment shift would probably be considered an advantage for Malack.

[Entar]

Vampire Durkon would be Durkon enough for his purposes, I suspect. The menories are still there, and the alignment shift would probably be considered an advantage for Malack.

This. Also, I wonder if Malack knew Durkula would fall under Hel's domain instead of Nergal's, and that Durkula would therefore have different goals than him. If Malack had (un)lived, Durkula might not have stuck around to be his colleague when freed.

[Akisa]

It also might be possible that Malack had ways to ensure the soul of the Vampire would be that of Durkon once freed. Or very least had similar personality...

[Sky_Schemer]

This. Also, I wonder if Malack knew Durkula would fall under Hel's domain instead of Nergal's, and that Durkula would therefore have different goals than him. If Malack had (un)lived, Durkula might not have stuck around to be his colleague when freed.

This. Just because Malack knew how his vampirism worked, that doesn't mean he knew how all vampirism worked.

HPoH has the benefit of direct communion with Hel because he is Hel's special project. He's got much more personal attention than any cleric we have seen so far, including Redcloak. There's no evidence Malack had any of this. He may have just assumed that all vampires were born from Nergal, and there was no one to correct him.

[Vinyadan]

Durkon was going to be a different experience. The other were children, Durkon a "brother". I think Malack never released control on his children, and didn't really know what would happen, if he did it to Dorkula. There may have been a lot of wishful thinking in Malack's unlife.

[Kish]

The High Priest of Hel has Durkon's Wisdom score, a destructive agenda like Malack's, and a great deal more sympathy for evil death gods than Durkon would ever have had. From Malack's perspective, where's the down side?

(And it's not like Malack refused to socialize with priests of other gods, or he would never have had even his concept of friendship with Durkon.)

[Keltest]

The High Priest of Hel has Durkon's Wisdom score, a destructive agenda like Malack's, and a great deal more sympathy for evil death gods than Durkon would ever have had. From Malack's perspective, where's the down side?

(And it's not like Malack refused to socialize with priests of other gods, or he would never have had even his concept of friendship with Durkon.)

Indeed. What Malack wanted was a peer, not necessarily Durkon specifically.

[rbetieh]

This. Also, I wonder if Malack knew Durkula would fall under Hel's domain instead of Nergal's, and that Durkula would therefore have different goals than him. If Malack had (un)lived, Durkula might not have stuck around to be his colleague when freed.

I don't know why, but it bothers me to no end that so many people suggest that high-level high-priests don't know how religion works in their own world...

[Keltest]

I don't know why, but it bothers me to no end that so many people suggest that high-level high-priests don't know how religion works in their own world...

Due to being a vampire, Malack was actually a lower level cleric than Durkon.

[factotum]

I don't know why, but it bothers me to no end that so many people suggest that high-level high-priests don't know how religion works in their own world...

Why should a priest of any stripe care overmuch about how religion works with respect to gods other than their own? We have in-strip evidence that Durkon, a high level cleric (albeit not a High Priest) had forgotten about how the Domain Agreement between the gods worked, for instance, and that's a considerably more useful piece of information for him to know than "Who supplies the spirit that inhabits a vampire?" or even "How does vampirism actually work?".

[Malfarian]

It's also possible that after time when the spirit absorbs all the memories, it may forget it wasn't the host.

[mikeejimbo]

Indeed. What Malack wanted was a peer, not necessarily Durkon specifically.

Yes, this.

Recall that he mentions that he did not wish to dwell where something unfortunate had happened to a friend. That makes me think he considers his friend Durkon to have died. The new vampire he thought would be his friend, but not necessarily that it would be Durkon.

[The Glyphstone]

Due to being a vampire, Malack was actually a lower level cleric than Durkon.

That assumes Malack, an NPC, was automatically the same ECL as Durkon, instead of just being equal level with a +2 CR template.

[jere7my]

He knew vampire Durkon would not be the same person as living Durkon so why did he do something that would make replace Durkon with a stranger and make him a prisoner in his own body?

I thought he respected Durkon. Even if he wanted vampire friends, wouldn't it have been more prudent to vamp Belkar and kill/imprison Durkon?

That's not the real question. The real question is, what is that spoiler tag in your subject line supposed to do?

[Rocktapus]

I sincerely don't think he expected the HPOH to be Durkula. It's kind of like going fishing off a pier and landing a 15' Great White Shark. He expected some malignant soul, and there's probably a level of control he would have had over Durkula. However, fairly sure the HPOH would have had his own plans that didn't involve Malack.

[Vinyadan]

Maybe everything would have been easier for Dorkula if he had staid with Malack. The Godsmoot would have been common knowledge between them, and no one would have opposed to giving him transport means to get to the Moot. I wonder if Tarquin would have trusted him, however.

[Keltest]

That assumes Malack, an NPC, was automatically the same ECL as Durkon, instead of just being equal level with a +2 CR template.

True. However, the Giant has indicated (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?294943-Word-of-Recall/page5&p=15723647#post15723647) that Malack's best spell slots are 6th level (the spell level of Word of Recall). Durkon was able to cast 7th level spells such as Holy Word and Control Weather at the time of his vampirization. I suppose its possible im taking him too literally there, but Rich has not historically been so imprecise with his words to mean "better" when he says "best".

[Entar]

I don't know why, but it bothers me to no end that so many people suggest that high-level high-priests don't know how religion works in their own world...

Well, I'm thinking back to #875 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0875.html), where Malack reveals his plan to inherit a unified continent for his god after his party members die of old age. He also talks about how life (or undeath) is about servitude and obedience.

So, if Malack knew the precise mechanics, I think it was unreasonable of him to assume that a high level vampire cleric of Hel wouldn't have, as Rocktapus says, plans of his own that may not involve Malack at all. It seems more likely to me that Malack was operating under the assumption that the vampire he created was Nergal's, and would work with him even if freed from thralldom.

[Kish]

That assumes Malack, an NPC, was automatically the same ECL as Durkon, instead of just being equal level with a +2 CR template.
Malack never cast any seventh-level spells on-panel, and during the fight with Durkon he sneered at Durkon's using a mere third-level spell, which seems, to me, to imply that Malack equated good tactics with breaking out the highest-level possible spells.

And while it may be a +2 CR template, it's also an ECL +8 template, and as a lizardfolk Malack would have had humanoid levels as well. There's no question of him being the same ECL as Durkon: he was epic-level (as, now, as the High Priest of Hel). The questions are whether he was higher-ECL than the rest of the Vector Legion, and whether the Vector Legion is supposed to be low-epic or high-epic.

[rbetieh]

Why should a priest of any stripe care overmuch about how religion works with respect to gods other than their own? We have in-strip evidence that Durkon, a high level cleric (albeit not a High Priest) had forgotten about how the Domain Agreement between the gods worked, for instance, and that's a considerably more useful piece of information for him to know than "Who supplies the spirit that inhabits a vampire?" or even "How does vampirism actually work?".

In that particular case, even the vampire spirit was confused that Durkon didn't remember that rule. And everyone else in that religion class learned it, it was unreasonable that Durkon didn't know it. It seems to me that the Giant has established that Durkon is a bad student of religion.

[Wildroses]

Before Durkon even appeared on the scene Malack had decided he wanted a baby vampire and he'd been planning to make Belkar one. I don't think Durkon was his first choice as he geniunely liked him and didn't really want to kill him. But Durkon intervened while he was trying to turn Belkar, made it clear there would only ever be hostility between them and forced the conflict from Malack's view.

I think Malack knew Durkula wouldn't be Durkon but didn't care. Even if Durkon had escaped, Malack knew he'd lost him because he wouldn't accept Malack as a vampire. And this way he still got the baby vampire he'd decided he wanted.

I'm not sure Malack would have cared much that Durkula would be following a different god to him. It's not like following different gods had gotten in the way of their friendship when he was Durkon.

[The Glyphstone]

True. However, the Giant has indicated (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?294943-Word-of-Recall/page5&p=15723647#post15723647) that Malack's best spell slots are 6th level (the spell level of Word of Recall). Durkon was able to cast 7th level spells such as Holy Word and Control Weather at the time of his vampirization. I suppose its possible im taking him too literally there, but Rich has not historically been so imprecise with his words to mean "better" when he says "best".

That's logical, and much better evidence, yeah.

[ORione]

In that particular case, even the vampire spirit was confused that Durkon didn't remember that rule. And everyone else in that religion class learned it, it was unreasonable that Durkon didn't know it. It seems to me that the Giant has established that Durkon is a bad student of religion.

Yeah, but only one gnome priest knew that vampires got new souls. How many priests are going to know who puts the new souls into vampires?

[StLordeth]

Didn't Vampire Durkon act a lot different when he was a newborn, too? Before Malack's death that is. It may have been explained and I missed it but I figured the HPOH didn't take over the body until after Malack's hold on him was gone.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Didn't Vampire Durkon act a lot different when he was a newborn, too? Before Malack's death that is. It may have been explained and I missed it but I figured the HPOH didn't take over the body until after Malack's hold on him was gone.

It is my impression that was still the HPoH, acting in a manner that would be seen as 'beneficial' by viewers (IE: Belkar). He was under Malack's control, but I think he had enough freedom in ways to express that control. Such as acting 'dumb' about his vampirism (when his toe burned). As a Vampire, the HPoH is an excellent manipulator.

[rbetieh]

Yeah, but only one gnome priest knew that vampires got new souls. How many priests are going to know who puts the new souls into vampires?

Only 1 Non-Blindfolded (and therefore able to recognize the presence of a vampire) Gnome Priest knew the information AND tried to warn Roy (because the story only required 1 to try to warn Roy). They apparently stopped after 2 temples. We dont even know how many more priests with the knowledge were simply in the first temple. Sample size is unbearably small to say definitively that this is not knowledge temple priests should have.

As for whether the soul came from one death gods domain or another, I would hazard that Malack knew and didnt care. After all, the soul has Free Will.

[StLordeth]

It is my impression that was still the HPoH, acting in a manner that would be seen as 'beneficial' by viewers (IE: Belkar). He was under Malack's control, but I think he had enough freedom in ways to express that control. Such as acting 'dumb' about his vampirism (when his toe burned). As a Vampire, the HPoH is an excellent manipulator. Yes, and that's likely the explanation for it, but was it ever confirmed?

I would have loved to see what would have happened if Nale hadn't of succeeded in killing Malack, and if it was the HPoH the whole time could it have manipulated the Vector Legion (all extremely high level characters, one being a psionist).

[137beth]

He wanted a vampire collegue, not necessarily a follower of Nergal. He might have also wanted a Lawful companion, which he may have correctly deduced a vampirized Durkon would be.
He was going to make Belkar into a vampire, but Durkon insisted that he leave the other OOTS members alive, so he vampirized Durkon instead.

[Rodin]

It is my impression that was still the HPoH, acting in a manner that would be seen as 'beneficial' by viewers (IE: Belkar). He was under Malack's control, but I think he had enough freedom in ways to express that control. Such as acting 'dumb' about his vampirism (when his toe burned). As a Vampire, the HPoH is an excellent manipulator.

I was under the impression that as a thrall Durkula's personality was being suppressed - that the HPoH was in there, but unable to do anything. The "Daylight bad!!" from the thrall was the same intelligence level we saw out of Tsukiko's Wights - something simulating intelligence while not being independently sapient.

Malack certainly seemed to be of the opinion that he would have a colleague once he relinquished control, but that keeping his intelligence suppressed was wise because there simply wasn't time for Durkon to come to terms with his vampireness. He was expecting to be able to "flip a switch" and suddenly Durkon would be there, and given his experience at creating vampires I see know reason to doubt his expertise.

[Dr.Zero]

He wanted a vampire collegue, not necessarily a follower of Nergal. He might have also wanted a Lawful companion, which he may have correctly deduced a vampirized Durkon would be.
He was going to make Belkar into a vampire, but Durkon insisted that he leave the other OOTS members alive, so he vampirized Durkon instead.

By the way, to me Durkula doesn't seem Lawful at all, in the usual behaviour associated with the alignment.

Malack was: he of course was lawful at Nergal,but he respected his word given to the late Durkon, he is loyal to his team and friends and honest with them about his future plans.

The same can be said about Tarquin.

The late Durkon was so lawful that he didn't want to lie to Malack -who he know for sure that wasn't good aligned, but at the very least neutral aligned- when he asked if him and Haley knew each other.

Durkula is loyal only toward Hel. For everything else he doesn't mind to trick, lie, backstab, whatever.
It really strikes me not as lawful but more as a neutral evil servant to Hel.

[Vinyadan]

The cleric who knew about stuff may have been a cloistered cleric. They get skill points and lore. Plus, a guy spending his time in a safe environment may be more interested in obscure stuff he may never meet, compared to an adventurer who will probably attempt to learn about what is most likely to bite his head off (i.e. probable threats).

Sure, the Order seems not to know much about probable threats either, but that's just how life works :smallbiggrin:

[factotum]

The late Durkon was so lawful that he didn't want to lie to Malack -who he know for sure that wasn't good aligned, but at the very least neutral aligned- when he asked if him and Haley knew each other.

Durkula is loyal only toward Hel. For everything else he doesn't mind to trick, lie, backstab, whatever.
It really strikes me not as lawful but more as a neutral evil servant to Hel.

Lawful does not mean "always tells the truth". Or are you saying that Redcloak is not Lawful because he's lying to Xykon about the Plan and his phylactery?

[Dr.Zero]

Lawful does not mean "always tells the truth". Or are you saying that Redcloak is not Lawful because he's lying to Xykon about the Plan and his phylactery?

That he is completely unlawful, no. That is not 100% lawful, yes.
In the case of Redcloak, he adheres to the lawful-classic alignment most of the time (respects authority, loyal to his cause, loyal to his people at least for what Xykon permits him). Sometimes has shown even a bit of "honour", for example when he changed his view of hobgoblin because one of them saved him. And sometimes he shows lacks of honour and deceiving attitudes. He kills, or leave dead, his owns, to reach the target, but shows he is sorry to have done that.

To make a comparison, Redcloak is the Roy of team Evil: not 100% lawful, but he is trying.
Ok, no, Roy with Belkar is not even trying, since he didn't say him he is going to die soon... but this is another matter.

On the other hand, Malack managed to be completely evil and 99% lawful.
The "Durkon must be killed only be me" attitude. Keeping his word about leaving the OOTS alive.

Durkula instead shows nothing of this.
He is only loyal to Hel. That's it.
Seems quite a stretch to define a spirit lawful only because it is loyal to the goddess to who it belongs (and that would punish it in the afterlife/other plane/whatever, if it breaks its loyalty) and for *everything else* behaves like a manipulator and a trickster. And all without a glimpse of remorse.

Let's add to this that Durkon alignment was not "someway lawful-good". Durkon was almost adamantine lawful. If the spirit inherited his alignment, only swapping the good with evil, it maybe could lie to reach his target. But it would show to be so unwilling and/or with remorse. Durkula *gloats* about lying and manipulating.

---

TL;DR:
It is not: "You lie/trick/backstab, you became 100% chaotic".
It is more about "You lie/trick/backstab, this makes you not 100% lawful, but if it is absolutely needed, you can do it, forcing this upon yourself. But if you don't care a bit about doing it, or you gloat about doing it, well, no, you are not lawful."

[Keltest]

That he is completely unlawful, no. That is not 100% lawful, yes.
In the case of Redcloak, he adheres to the lawful-classic alignment most of the time (respects authority, loyal to his cause, loyal to his people at least for what Xykon permits him). Sometimes has shown even a bit of "honour", for example when he changed his view of hobgoblin because one of them saved him. And sometimes he shows lacks of honour and deceiving attitudes. He kills, or leave dead, his owns, to reach the target, but shows he is sorry to have done that.

To make a comparison, Redcloak is the Roy of team Evil: not 100% lawful, but he is trying.
Ok, no, Roy with Belkar is not even trying, since he didn't say him he is going to die soon... but this is another matter.

On the other hand, Malack managed to be completely evil and 99% lawful.
The "Durkon must be killed only be me" attitude. Keeping his word about leaving the OOTS alive.

Durkula instead shows nothing of this.
He is only loyal to Hel. That's it.
Seems quite a stretch to define a spirit lawful only because it is loyal to the goddess to who it belongs (and that would punish it in the afterlife/other plane/whatever, if it breaks its loyalty) and for *everything else* behaves like a manipulator and a trickster. And all without a glimpse of remorse.

Let's add to this that Durkon alignment was not "someway lawful-good". Durkon was almost adamantine lawful. If the spirit inherited his alignment, only swapping the good with evil, it maybe could lie to reach his target. But it would show to be so unwilling and/or with remorse. Durkula *gloats* about lying and manipulating.

---

TL;DR:
It is not: "You lie/trick/backstab, you became 100% chaotic".
It is more about "You lie/trick/backstab, this makes you not 100% lawful, but if it is absolutely needed, you can do it, forcing this upon yourself. But if you don't care a bit about doing it, or you gloat about doing it, well, no, you are not lawful."

Being Lawful and being loyal or honest are rather unrelated. Above all else, those of the lawful alignment believe in the necessity for order and structure. The High Priest of Hel does not view himself as a member of the Order of the Stick and therefore does not feel obligated to respect them. Durkon feels bad about lying because he is a fundamentally honest person, not because he is lawful.

[Nightcanon]

It's also possible that after time when the spirit absorbs all the memories, it may forget it wasn't the host.

I think this is important. When Malack says he's no longer the tribal shaman he was before he was vamped, he may mean it in the way that it would have seemed when he said it- i.e. 'so much has happened since, I've changed with the passage of so much time', rather than 'the instant I became a vampire, my soul took over this host body and enslaved the soul of the original owner, which has since been absorbed.'

[Zmeoaice]

It's also possible that Malack currently has a good relationship with the original soul in the body and thought Durkon would eventually be the same.

[Quebbster]

It's also possible that Malack currently has a good relationship with the original soul in the body and thought Durkon would eventually be the same.
I'd wager Malack has long since absorbed all the shaman's memories and sent the original soul into eternal dormancy. HPoH said it was only a matter of time before the eternal dormancy, and Malack has been around for a long time.
But on the other hand, with all the shaman's memories, Malack may consider the shaman who he once was. It's a foundation for the vampire's soul at least.

[Murk]

It's also possible that after time when the spirit absorbs all the memories, it may forget it wasn't the host.

This might be in the right direction.
We've only seen Durkon and the vampire for about a week, at this moment? I can't really imagine Malack having a ghost in the back of his head, too. I'm thinking that if a vampire inhabits a body long enough the two personas kind of merge. That shouldn't be too hard - the vampire already has all the hosts memories, maybe even a little of its personality.
I'm thinking that after a short while, you can't make a distinction between vampire and host anymore. For Malack, this might have been enough - not really Durkon, but a new person that is heavily inspired by him.

[factotum]

I can't really imagine Malack having a ghost in the back of his head, too.

Bit puzzled about that, to be honest--what about Malack would make it unlikely he was the same as Durkon? Heck, until the big reveal was made after their escape, most people on these forums thought Durkula was just "Durkon with extra Evil". Since we never knew Malack before he was a vampire it's impossible to tell how different (or similar) he is to his living self, and therefore I don't have a problem at all with assuming he has a (long dormant) ghost in his head.

[Murk]

Bit puzzled about that, to be honest--what about Malack would make it unlikely he was the same as Durkon? Heck, until the big reveal was made after their escape, most people on these forums thought Durkula was just "Durkon with extra Evil". Since we never knew Malack before he was a vampire it's impossible to tell how different (or similar) he is to his living self, and therefore I don't have a problem at all with assuming he has a (long dormant) ghost in his head.

Eh, that's true, but it doesn't seem like a healthy long-term situation. I doubt even Durkon would continue to battle the vampire for two hundred years - it would get tiresome, to say the least. The "long dormant" part is an option too, but I would assume that in some manner the original soul gets quieted down, or they would both go completely nuts.
People who have to hear/feel voices the entire day do not tend to be extremely stable in stressful situations (especially, I guess, after two hundred years), and Malack seemed pretty in control of his own thoughts.

[factotum]

The conversations between Durkula and Durkon imply that, once the vampire spirit has got all the useful information out of the original soul, that soul becomes dormant. Pretty sure that means the soul is absolutely silent and doesn't say anything ever again (until it's presumably freed on the destruction of the vampire).

[Murk]

Yeah, that works. If you have a soul in the back of your head, a soul that you are based on, and all your memories once belonged to that soul... I think that qualifies as some sort of merging, or at least on a personality that is for a large part shared. After two hundred years, how hard would it be to make a distinction between yourself and the original host? I think pretty hard.
I think Malack, who went through it himself, might not really be able to make a clear distinction between who the host was and who he is himself.
That, or something completely else. Anyone's guess :)

[Vinyadan]

Maybe the spirit causes the soul to be so disgusted by itself, that it just wishes to be extinguished and ends up in dormancy. Dorkula rubbing a few words in Durkon's nose and giving it a different weight from the one they actually have may be the first step in this direction.

[Dr.Zero]

Being Lawful and being loyal or honest are rather unrelated. Above all else, those of the lawful alignment believe in the necessity for order and structure. The High Priest of Hel does not view himself as a member of the Order of the Stick and therefore does not feel obligated to respect them. Durkon feels bad about lying because he is a fundamentally honest person, not because he is lawful.

Uhm, but see, you are talking of D&D like there was a "honest" trait or alignment, but there isn't.

In D&D honest=adamantine lawful.

Of course Durkula does not feel that he must be loyal with the OOTS.
But he should be "lawful" in a general sense, so he should be a creature who despises -up to some extent- lying and tricks.

But worse, if he inherited the lawful alignment from Durkon, he must be lawful as much as Durkon was.

So yes, he should be "honest" (adamantine lawful) as much as possible and, above all, he should feel bad lying.

On a general note, this is the lawful alignment from SRD:


"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.


The point of lawful alignment is not being loyal to a single cause or a single person/group (else Haley would qualify by large, being loyal to the OOTS, to Elan particularly, to the Azure City's rebels, and so on).
As the point of being good is not being good to a single person or group ("even evil persons have beloved ones").

The point of alignment is about being in some way compulsory.

Lawful is a compulsion toward honour before reason, for example (up to the "not lying"). You can as well be lawful evil and be honourable and honest. It is a common trope: the evil one who wants to duel the worthy hero toe to toe, because "he deserves it" and this kind of stuff. Like Malack did.
It can show itself in different shades, but Durkula shows none of these shades.
And surely enough not even a glimpse of the shade he should have inherited from Durkon.

He is just servant and loyal to Hel. Like Haley is loyal to Elan and the OOTS.
If this was the lawful criterion, everyone who has beloved ones or just a single thing in which he/she believes would qualify.
And only the totally crazy, completely asocial and lonely dishonourable people would qualify being chaotic. No loved ones for them, no team work, nothing. :)
It would be a quite unbalanced definition. :)

And sorry for the delay in replying. :)

[Lord Stoneheart]

Uhm, but see, you are talking of D&D like there was a "honest" trait or alignment, but there isn't.

In D&D honest=adamantine lawful.

Of course Durkula does not feel that he must be loyal with the OOTS.
But he should be "lawful" in a general sense, so he should be a creature who despises -up to some extent- lying and tricks.

But worse, if he inherited the lawful alignment from Durkon, he must be lawful as much as Durkon was.

So yes, he should be "honest" (adamantine lawful) as much as possible and, above all, he should feel bad lying.

On a general note, this is the lawful alignment from SRD:



The point of lawful alignment is not being loyal to a single cause or a single person/group (else Haley would qualify by large, being loyal to the OOTS, to Elan particularly, to the Azure City's rebels, and so on).
As the point of being good is not being good to a single person or group ("even evil persons have beloved ones").

The point of alignment is about being in some way compulsory.

Lawful is a compulsion toward honour before reason, for example (up to the "not lying"). You can as well be lawful evil and be honourable and honest. It is a common trope: the evil one who wants to duel the worthy hero toe to toe, because "he deserves it" and this kind of stuff. Like Malack did.
It can show itself in different shades, but Durkula shows none of these shades.
And surely enough not even a glimpse of the shade he should have inherited from Durkon.

He is just servant and loyal to Hel. Like Haley is loyal to Elan and the OOTS.
If this was the lawful criterion, everyone who has beloved ones or just a single thing in which he/she believes would qualify.
And only the totally crazy, completely asocial and lonely dishonourable people would qualify being chaotic. No loved ones for them, no team work, nothing. :)
It would be a quite unbalanced definition. :)

And sorry for the delay in replying. :)

Under that definition many Lawful Evil characters wouldn't qualify for being Lawful because they lie a lot. Redcloak is Lawful Evil, but he's been lying to Xykon about the ritual for decades. And he doesn't always take the honor before reason route either. (Such as killing Thanh with the elementals even when challenged to a duel). He's still Lawful Evil because he does have a code he follows. (The religion of The Dark One). And he's very methodical in his planning. (A trait that from what we've seen from Lurky, he shares).

[Keltest]

Uhm, but see, you are talking of D&D like there was a "honest" trait or alignment, but there isn't.

In D&D honest=adamantine lawful.

Of course Durkula does not feel that he must be loyal with the OOTS.
But he should be "lawful" in a general sense, so he should be a creature who despises -up to some extent- lying and tricks.

But worse, if he inherited the lawful alignment from Durkon, he must be lawful as much as Durkon was.

So yes, he should be "honest" (adamantine lawful) as much as possible and, above all, he should feel bad lying.

On a general note, this is the lawful alignment from SRD:



The point of lawful alignment is not being loyal to a single cause or a single person/group (else Haley would qualify by large, being loyal to the OOTS, to Elan particularly, to the Azure City's rebels, and so on).
As the point of being good is not being good to a single person or group ("even evil persons have beloved ones").

The point of alignment is about being in some way compulsory.

Lawful is a compulsion toward honour before reason, for example (up to the "not lying"). You can as well be lawful evil and be honourable and honest. It is a common trope: the evil one who wants to duel the worthy hero toe to toe, because "he deserves it" and this kind of stuff. Like Malack did.
It can show itself in different shades, but Durkula shows none of these shades.
And surely enough not even a glimpse of the shade he should have inherited from Durkon.

He is just servant and loyal to Hel. Like Haley is loyal to Elan and the OOTS.
If this was the lawful criterion, everyone who has beloved ones or just a single thing in which he/she believes would qualify.
And only the totally crazy, completely asocial and lonely dishonourable people would qualify being chaotic. No loved ones for them, no team work, nothing. :)
It would be a quite unbalanced definition. :)

And sorry for the delay in replying. :)

Not every character trait is a facet of their alignment. You are correct, Lawful people will generally not use deception as their first plan. But the HPoH didn't really have a lot of options that didn't involve deception. But it is entirely possible to have a dishonest lawful person, and they are all the more dangerous for it because you don't expect their dishonesty.

[War-Wren]

Lots of interesting discussion about the HPoH's Lawful, or Unlawful, behaviour. I'm going to go back over the archive since HPoH gained his freedom following Malack's death. I'm not 100% certain that he has lied... I am possibly wrong, but I am looking at the archive anyway...

My suspicion is that HPoH has been 'massaging reality' and twisting words to retain truth, without being completely open... but in addition not telling outright lies.

The first is the conversation with Roy and the "Aren't you evil?" comment, with the response "No more than Belkar, I'd imagine"... which is probably true, considering Belkar is definitely an evil little bugger! :smalltongue:

EDIT: Spoilered, cos lots...
> No lies up to this point (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0939.html)
> Still no lies (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0953.html)
> I's always good to help (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0956.html), cos that way I can continue my infiltration and get what I need...
> This one (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0957.html) is a little more ambiguous, I'll admit... BUT! Everyone else has accepted him as Durkon but different, why can't Belkar? It's not a lie as such, he's just stating that it seems strange, out of everyone, including the man who knows me best, Belkar's the only one that can't just accept it...
> Okay... more ambiguity (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0958.html), though technically he's just leaving out the word 'I used me vampire voodoo' before that first sentence. The full thing probably reads, "Belkar threathened me, got all up in my grill, then he jumped overboard!" Lies of omission, maybe. Outright lie, no.
> Still a silly joke (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0961.html), but not a lie
> Hmm... struggling a little to justify this one (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0966.html)! I suppose you could say he is hoping there is one powerful enough to rezz him, because then they might be able to find out the information needed to justifiy the journey to the Godsmoot. Not lying... technically!
> Yay! Back to a lack of lies! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0985.html)
> Oooo... that comment to Wrecan sounds like a lie... (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0987.html) :smallmad: Ok, give that some thought and see if we can twist it, Baatezu style...
> This'll all be over soon (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0992.html) :smallconfused: Yes, yes it will...
> Again, a bit of a fib here... (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0994.html) Wait patiently until they're done? Not quite what he had in mind, was it...

But other than those two, I don't think I can find a blatant, on-panel lie, since he was given free-will following Malcack's death... thoughts?

I once ran a Planscape campaign, where the party had to journey through the Nine Hells... I had to get pretty good at this sort of lying, but not lying :smallwink:

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I think possibly he thought this was the best thing for Durkon as well. I mean, he's evil, undead and immortal. He sees the opportunities that being those things offer. He probably views those things as better than what being good and an afterlife have to offer. A dark spirit molded by Durkons memories and personality, in an immortal body and with less morals and goodness holding him back, that being would have a lot more possibilities than poor old living Durkon ever had. And his perspective is that of the dark spirit. From where he stands it may not look like dooming Durkon and replacing him by another slightly similar creature, more like awakening a new aspect of Durkon, and sending an old aspect to eternal sleep.

He did not know that Hel would send Durks on a quest, but even so they could have parted ways peacefully and met up maybe a century from now to catch up. Time to spare. Even with what Nale told them about the gates, I don't think he realized how much the world is ending right now, or that Durkula would want the world to end. Evil Durkon might have even made arrangements for Malack to survive, like maybe tip him off that he really should have a plane shift spell ready in a few days. And ones the new world goes up the two of them have a unique insight in it, maybe they could even sneak a private spell or two into the new space-time fabric. I think overall it would have worked out pretty well for Malack. That is, unless Durkon secretly loathed him but was too polite to say it, in that case Durkula would probably have dusted him himself. But it doesn't look like that was the case.

[Dr.Zero]

Lots of interesting discussion about the HPoH's Lawful, or Unlawful, behaviour. I'm going to go back over the archive since HPoH gained his freedom following Malack's death. I'm not 100% certain that he has lied... I am possibly wrong, but I am looking at the archive anyway...

My suspicion is that HPoH has been 'massaging reality' and twisting words to retain truth, without being completely open... but in addition not telling outright lies.

The first is the conversation with Roy and the "Aren't you evil?" comment, with the response "No more than Belkar, I'd imagine"... which is probably true, considering Belkar is definitely an evil little bugger! :smalltongue:

EDIT: Spoilered, cos lots...
> No lies up to this point (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0939.html)
> Still no lies (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0953.html)
> I's always good to help (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0956.html), cos that way I can continue my infiltration and get what I need...
> This one (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0957.html) is a little more ambiguous, I'll admit... BUT! Everyone else has accepted him as Durkon but different, why can't Belkar? It's not a lie as such, he's just stating that it seems strange, out of everyone, including the man who knows me best, Belkar's the only one that can't just accept it...
> Okay... more ambiguity (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0958.html), though technically he's just leaving out the word 'I used me vampire voodoo' before that first sentence. The full thing probably reads, "Belkar threathened me, got all up in my grill, then he jumped overboard!" Lies of omission, maybe. Outright lie, no.
> Still a silly joke (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0961.html), but not a lie
> Hmm... struggling a little to justify this one (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0966.html)! I suppose you could say he is hoping there is one powerful enough to rezz him, because then they might be able to find out the information needed to justifiy the journey to the Godsmoot. Not lying... technically!
> Yay! Back to a lack of lies! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0985.html)
> Oooo... that comment to Wrecan sounds like a lie... (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0987.html) :smallmad: Ok, give that some thought and see if we can twist it, Baatezu style...
> This'll all be over soon (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0992.html) :smallconfused: Yes, yes it will...
> Again, a bit of a fib here... (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0994.html) Wait patiently until they're done? Not quite what he had in mind, was it...

But other than those two, I don't think I can find a blatant, on-panel lie, since he was given free-will following Malcack's death... thoughts?

I once ran a Planscape campaign, where the party had to journey through the Nine Hells... I had to get pretty good at this sort of lying, but not lying :smallwink:


Technically every time Durkula used the first singular person ("me" or "I") talking about something Durkon did before becoming Durkula, he was lying. ;)

Only in the last strips:
#1006: "Maybe I no longer want to serve a god" (speaking of Thor), but he never served Thor; "Maybe... after I was resurrected", but he cannot be resurrected. But, yeah, he is making hypothesis.
#1007: "They exiled me", but Durkula was never exiled, Durkon was.
#1009: "I died on your watch", but it was Durkon to die; "...I've always wondered since you first told me this story", no he told the story to Durkon, Durkula wasn't there and he knows it by watching the memories.

And we cannot say that he confuses himself with Durkon, because both with Durkon in his mind and with Roy in #1011 he's pretty clear about being something else ("...or ever seeing Durkon again")


To make a long story short: if the vampires in OOTS should follow the "same alignment about lawful/ chaos, but evil" I would have made a fuss about it. :D
But here they don't, so... meh.

To return more to the starting point: about Malack, honestly I asked myself as well why he should care about vampirizing Durkon, if the spirit's personality is kinda random if compared with the real one. And Malack, being himself a spirit, does know this. I even went so far as speculating that, after some time, the original souls regain some kind of control, merging with the evilness of the possessing spirit (by the way: this would have been almost perfect for a Belkula).
But word of god said this works more or less as a soul bind, so I guess it is not the case.

But then maybe Malack didn't know it exactly. Maybe he was created as completely lawful spirit to fit for a completely lawful shaman, and he only guessed that it would have worked in the same way for Durkon. He extrapolated a general rule by the only datas that he knew: the ones about himself.
So all what he thought about a vampirized Durkon could have been wishful thinking based on the only case he knew: himself.

[dmc91356]

But then maybe Malack didn't know it exactly. Maybe he was created as completely lawful spirit to fit for a completely lawful shaman, and he only guessed that it would have worked in the same way for Durkon. He extrapolated a general rule by the only datas that he knew: the ones about himself.
So all what he thought about a vampirized Durkon could have been wishful thinking based on the only case he knew: himself.

Well, Nale did previously kill his "children" which we know from dialogue to mean other vampires he made in the past, so I am not sure we can affirmatively state that Malack's personal case was the only one he knew, but point taken.

Pretty clear that HPOH is not particularly lawful, in the way that term is usually used, at least if we judge his statements.

[Snails]

Lying is far from forbidden for Lawfuls, although we can see that many very Lawful persons have compunctions and rules of honor about that sort of thing: Durkon, Malack, Tarquin.

But I think the suggestion that the HPoH is not Lawful is correct. His behavior seems perfectly in keeping with Neutral Evil. He has zero personal quirks that suggest any sense of honor or similar.

My explanation is that Malack probably expected the controlling spirit to be Lawful, and he simply happened to wrong, lacking the specific knowledge of the details about vampirizing someone who clearly falls under the rules of another pantheon. As someone who has probably spent his entire two centuries on one continent and is not promiscuous with his vampirizing, finding out the truth about how other pantheons work just never happened to come up.

[Dr.Zero]

Well, Nale did previously kill his "children" which we know from dialogue to mean other vampires he made in the past, so I am not sure we can affirmatively state that Malack's personal case was the only one he knew, but point taken.

Pretty clear that HPOH is not particularly lawful, in the way that term is usually used, at least if we judge his statements.

I totally forgot about the "children".

Therefore...


Lying is far from forbidden for Lawfuls, although we can see that many very Lawful persons have compunctions and rules of honor about that sort of thing: Durkon, Malack, Tarquin.

But I think the suggestion that the HPoH is not Lawful is correct. His behavior seems perfectly in keeping with Neutral Evil. He has zero personal quirks that suggest any sense of honor or similar.

My explanation is that Malack probably expected the controlling spirit to be Lawful, and he simply happened to wrong, lacking the specific knowledge of the details about vampirizing someone who clearly falls under the rules of another pantheon. As someone who has probably spent his entire two centuries on one continent and is not promiscuous with his vampirizing, finding out the truth about how other pantheons work just never happened to come up.

This seems the only explanation remaining, if we accept that -degree of lawfulness aside- Durkula behaves in a totally different way when compared to Durkon (and so it is hardly understandable why Malack should care to vampirize Durkon, if he knew that the result would have been a "random" personality).

The funny thing is that Hel should be "Lawful Neutral" and has a spirit that more or less we agree is kinda "Neutral Evil" (and she totally needs him this way, for her plan).
Nergal should be "Neutral Evil" and his high priest was "Lawful Evil" (and maybe his "children" were the same as well).

[Sylian]

The funny thing is that Hel should be "Lawful Neutral" and has a spirit that more or less we agree is kinda "Neutral Evil" (and she totally needs him this way, for her plan).What makes you think Hel is Lawful Neutral? She seems pretty Neutral Evil to me.

[Dr.Zero]

What makes you think Hel is Lawful Neutral? She seems pretty Neutral Evil to me.

Yeah, forget it. I was referring to some homebrew data. :)
This one: http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Hel_%283.5e_Deity%29
But, checking better, I cannot find an official alignment for her.

[paddyfool]

I don't know why, but it bothers me to no end that so many people suggest that high-level high-priests don't know how religion works in their own world...

After the 5 ranks of Knowledge (Religion) needed for a bonus to Turning [/Rebuking] undead, there's very little mechanical purpose to gaining more without some specific other investments, e.g. Knowledge devotion.

[Eireannx]

Malack refers to the new vampires as his 'children'. Proper parents know that their children will have their own personalities and desires. So Malack would get a random soul with a random personality. But also with stats based on the originating character's stats. So by vamping Durkon he could expect a similarly high wisdom creatin who he could possibly relate to.

Durkon is I believe, Awful Good, so once he knew Malack was a vampire he would feel somewhat inclined to destroy him. That seems to be the case given their encounter beneath the pyramid where Malack looked for peaceful solutions before coming into conflict with the Dwarf. So Durkon was no longer an option as a friend or even peer.

And if you vamped Belkar, who has wisdom as a dump stat, even the vampire stat improvements would still make him a rash idiot. Which isn't really a desirable long term companion.

[Keltest]

After the 5 ranks of Knowledge (Religion) needed for a bonus to Turning [/Rebuking] undead, there's very little mechanical purpose to gaining more without some specific other investments, e.g. Knowledge devotion.

Which is great and all, except that the OOTS world is not a game of D&D, and characters do not make decisions based on what is mechanically optimal. A High Knowledge (Religion) is almost certainly a requisite or at least helpful for rising in mainstream church hierarchy, something that D&D PCs are unlikely to be doing.

[Vinyadan]

To be honest, the world is a varied place, and I wouldn't be too surprised if a couple High Priests had more ranks in Knowledge:Nobility than in Kn:Religion. It all depends on what a High Priest does. I can think of liturgical matters (creating other priests and admitting new believers), organizational matters (creating parishes, appointing responsibilities), doctrinal matters (definition of sins and dogmas), preaching, representation&PR, military involvement (levels)... All of these require different skill sets.

[Porthos]

You know, Tarquin is a downright dirty liar as well.

He lies about being a humble servant of the Empire.

He is/was in the middle decades long scheme to completely hoodwink a large portion of the Western Continent.

He will flat out Lie by Ommission to people he wants to manipulate.

He allows people to think he is allied with them while backstabbing them moments later.

Yet, he is as Lawful Evil as the day is long. Yes, he believes in Technical Truth. And, yes, he has a personal code. And he absolutely worships at the altar of Structure. But he is devious, manipluative, and not at all above-the-board.

So, yeah. Count me in the "Durkon" deceiving folks he doesn't like about who he really is as non-indicative of alignment camp.

[orrion]

I don't know why, but it bothers me to no end that so many people suggest that high-level high-priests don't know how religion works in their own world...

Wait, where was it said that Malack is the high priest of his god?

[Keltest]

Wait, where was it said that Malack is the high priest of his god?

Tarquin said it when explaining how he and Malack just kind of follow with the regime changes. We don't strictly know that it meant "Highest priest of Nergal, anywhere" as opposed to "High priest of Nergal in the Empire of Blood and its replacements" though.

[Psyren]

Actually this thread raises an interesting question for me - what was Nergal's vote at the Godsmoot? Had Malack survived long enough after the Gate's destruction to get marching orders, would he have been the priest chosen to vote, and what would that vote have been? (Malack does refer to himself as "high priest" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0719.html), but it's ambiguous whether he meant that to mean "of Nergal" or "for the Empire.")

I'm curious whether Nergal would have known what releasing Durkon might have meant for Hel's ability to participate, and if so, whether he would have permitted the obedient Malack to do so at all. Chances are Nergal voted yes to destroying the world, given his portfolio of death as well as the fact that the Western Pantheon voted "yes" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0999.html) as a bloc, though we don't know for sure.

[factotum]

I'm curious whether Nergal would have known what releasing Durkon might have meant for Hel's ability to participate, and if so, whether he would have permitted the obedient Malack to do so at all.

I would imagine that he wouldn't actually care. The pantheons all seem to be separated out--they have sole dominion over their part of the world, and if they use their power in the dominion of another pantheon they get slapped down for it. Examples: Thor getting scolded by Tiger for allowing Control Weather to do something it should not have been capable of in the Southern lands, and the Thor-sent storm which tried to "sink" the Mechane started as soon as the ship crossed into Northern skies and not a moment before.

Therefore, what happens in the Northern pantheon's area of control will not affect or be affected by anything Nergal does.

[Onyavar]

I've read a lot about Malack wanting a sophisticated friend with whom he could talk. Agreed, that's all said in the comic. In fact, nearly all relevant points were covered in the first half of the first page in this thread.

I've read a lot here about "Malack failing his Knowledge:Religion check", not knowing that Undurkon would be Hel's servant, as Durkon was a Northern Priest and "citizen of the Northern Pantheon".

What if this was actually not a question of where Durkon belonged, but what his race was? Quite probably, a Northerner human vampire created on the Western continent would fall under Nergals domain - only dwarves have a special deal due to a certain godly wager? In that case, Malack didn't fail a check of "Knowledge about vampires and their religion" but "Knowledge about dwarves and their religion". We're talking about the guy who tried the Poison spell on Durkon.

[Psyren]

Therefore, what happens in the Northern pantheon's area of control will not affect or be affected by anything Nergal does.

The Gates fall under all of their jurisdiction though, hence the Godsmoot. And Nergal having control over two of the participants would have had a major effect on that.

It's moot (heh) now in any case, just wondering how all that would have changed had Malack survived. (Well, continued to exist, at any rate.)

[Vinyadan]

It's moot (heh) now in any case, just wondering how all that would have changed had Malack survived. (Well, continued to exist, at any rate.)

Had he not joined the great dustbin above? :smalltongue:

[Keltest]

The Gates fall under all of their jurisdiction though, hence the Godsmoot. And Nergal having control over two of the participants would have had a major effect on that.

It's moot (heh) now in any case, just wondering how all that would have changed had Malack survived. (Well, continued to exist, at any rate.)

probably not a lot. The priest of any given god doesn't actually get any relevant voice in the Moot.

[The gF]

That's logical, and much better evidence, yeah.

We shouldn't take that as evidence that 6th was his highest spell level, though. Since Death Ward is a 4th level spell, Mass Death Ward would be at least 7th, if not 8th level, and Malack was able to create it-- meaning he'd have to be able to cast spells of at least that level.

[Keltest]

We shouldn't take that as evidence that 6th was his highest spell level, though. Since Death Ward is a 4th level spell, Mass Death Ward would be at least 7th, if not 8th level, and Malack was able to create it-- meaning he'd have to be able to cast spells of at least that level.

Malack was not able to create it. Durkon created it as a 7th level spell (because Rich forgot it already existed). Malack assisted him, but was not involved mechanically, other than tricking Durkon into including a back door for him to use.

[Psyren]

probably not a lot. The priest of any given god doesn't actually get any relevant voice in the Moot.

With Malack alive though (err, extant... dammit), Nergal would have had control over Hel's ability to participate, through her high priest. Which as we've seen, has ended up being a pretty big deal for the moot itself.

Mostly this train of thought popped into my head because someone earlier in the thread was wondering what possible reason Malack could have for not wanting to free Durkon, even if it meant him haring off to do Hel's bidding rather than sticking around as a sibling/colleague, since they'd likely have many sympathetic views. Depending on Nergal's vote, he's have good reason to make Malack either hasten Durkon's freedom and departure, or keep little brother enthralled until the moot was over.

[Keltest]

With Malack alive though (err, extant... dammit), Nergal would have had control over Hel's ability to participate, through her high priest. Which as we've seen, has ended up being a pretty big deal for the moot itself.

Mostly this train of thought popped into my head because someone earlier in the thread was wondering what possible reason Malack could have for not wanting to free Durkon, even if it meant him haring off to do Hel's bidding rather than sticking around as a sibling/colleague, since they'd likely have many sympathetic views. Depending on Nergal's vote, he's have good reason to make Malack either hasten Durkon's freedom and departure, or keep little brother enthralled until the moot was over.

Malack intended to release Durkon from Thralldom fairly soon anyway. Once they got back to Bleedingham, IIRC, so within that same day even.

[Psyren]

Malack intended to release Durkon from Thralldom fairly soon anyway. Once they got back to Bleedingham, IIRC, so within that same day even.

Indeed - but that plan was before the gate went krackakoom and the gods started getting antsy.

[Keltest]

Indeed - but that plan was before the gate went krackakoom and the gods started getting antsy.

True. However the Western pantheon votes yes. Unless Nergal has some attachment to this world we don't know about, he is almost certainly indifferent to the idea of killing everyone. He would therefore probably release the HPoH, because she votes the same way he probably voted, and that the pantheon ultimately did.

[alexandraerin]

As far as Durkon forgetting the way the rules regarding domains worked goes, we should bear in mind that it is canon that he doesn't have a lot of ranks in Knowledge (religion) (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0052.html) and that as much as he's more comfortable with rules, he tends to forget the minutiae (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0034.html).

I figure that he'll know what Thor expects and requires of him and follow it to the letter to the best of his ability, but any questions about how it all works? Not something a humble dwarf need concern himself with.

[Psyren]

True. However the Western pantheon votes yes. Unless Nergal has some attachment to this world we don't know about, he is almost certainly indifferent to the idea of killing everyone. He would therefore probably release the HPoH, because she votes the same way he probably voted, and that the pantheon ultimately did.

Indeed, that was my conclusion as well. Heck, if Malack were still around (and the Order somehow escaped the LG/VL anyway), Malack would probably endeavor to get his little brother teleported to the moot post-haste.