What If? we never get the real Durkon back? [Archive]

Mad Humanist

2016-01-04, 05:10 PM

Has anybody seriously considered the idea that Durkon will never be restored during the run of OOTS?

It would be super sad but the Oracle is specify that Elan gets a happy ending but implies that other people don't. Does anybody think that this might happen? Durkula gets away from the Godsmoot, becomes a recurring villian, fails at destroying the world but without being dusted, and never gets killed until after the main story has ended if at all.

If this was reality I would say that would be entirely possible. However every character has had a major arc: Roy, Belkar, V, Haley, Elan. So I would expoect we get Durkon back towards the end of the book.

PallentisLunam

2016-01-04, 05:17 PM

Ack, I hate metasolutions like that. It's fun when the comic breaks the fourth wall or references mechanics and storytelling devices but making predictions based on it being a story... so unsatisfying.

Durkon returns to us because you don't throw away character development like that... please no.

Jasdoif

2016-01-04, 05:24 PM

If this was reality I would say that would be entirely possible. However every character has had a major arc: Roy, Belkar, V, Haley, Elan. So I would expoect we get Durkon back towards the end of the book.What's the connection? This is Durkon's major arc that we're in right now, him being alive is clearly not a prerequisite for it.

KorvinStarmast

2016-01-04, 05:42 PM

What's the connection? This is Durkon's major arc that we're in right now, him being alive is clearly not a prerequisite for it.
The Order's original two adventuring companions are: Roy & Durkon. The rest joined later. In a lot of ways, Roy and Durkon are opposites, aside from being generally good guys.

Roy is tall, dark, handsome/charismatic, very smart, outgoing, a leader. Roy dies and ends up in a heaven-like nice place and interacting with, even getting help from, supernatural beings and archons before being raised.

Durkon is shy/reserved, short, light, not a leader, not super smart, not charismatic. Durkon dies and ends up in an internal hell: his soul hangs in bondage as he watches an evil spirit take over his body and do evil while Durkon has always tried to do good.

This "opposites" structural approach for Durkon's major arc, a contrast to Roy's major arc, will either be resolved by a parallel "Durkon gets raised" like Roy got raised (I bet the over) as the mechanism of getting rid of Durkula for once and for all, or "Durkon doesn't get raised" (the complete opposite) and remains dead (I bet the under). That's a very sour closure to the arc, but not beyond Rich's reach, given that his the final destruction of Nale (and Thog and zz'dtri) came off with coarse brutality. (Well, Roy's use of architecture was sorta cool).

All that has to happen to fulfill Durkon's prophesy is for "death and destruction" to visit the dwarven lands. It appears that this is about to happen. For the book to close with an OoTS victory, the rest of the order needs to defeat Durkula and raise Durkon once they handle the disaster about to fall upon the dwarven lands, as disaster fell upon the Azure City. The Order has managed to pull off such successes against considerable odds before. I think they can do it again.

Kish

2016-01-04, 08:10 PM

Has anybody seriously considered the idea that Durkon will never be restored during the run of OOTS?
Considering someone started half a dozen threads saying, "Uh, why do people think Roy's coming back, he's obviously staying dead!" as soon as Roy died, and considering that people proposed Haley still speaking in cryptograms at the final battle with Xykon, I'm quite certain someone somewhere has seriously considered (or at least assumed) that, yes.

But why would that happen? Obviously it cannot be absolutely disproven short of Rich replying to this thread with "Not happening," but is there any positive reason to expect it to?

PallentisLunam

2016-01-04, 08:54 PM

Umm, how about because Durkula is powerful, intelligent, and winning?

What positive reason do we have to expect that he will be restored? Because the Order is powerful, intelligent, and the good guys.

It would make for a good story either way, and while that by itself doesn't count as a good reason to rule something in or out it does count as a good reason to have the discussion.

Kish

2016-01-04, 08:57 PM

I fundamentally disagree with that statement. "Durkon remains imprisoned in the body of a monstrous villain, because the villain is powerful, intelligent, and hasn't been beaten by the one-third mark of the book where he's the primary villain" sounds like an awful story ending to me.

More importantly for whether it will happen, from things he's said, I would be amazed if it didn't sound like an awful ending to Rich, too.

ti'esar

2016-01-04, 10:12 PM

The High Priest of Hel getting dusted and Durkon going on to his rightful reward without ever coming back to life, I could buy. I think it's probably less likely than him being resurrected, but it's not impossible. But I don't see any circumstances where the HPoH just continues running around forever as a plausible story development.

PallentisLunam

2016-01-04, 10:53 PM

Think about it though, all of the things that the order has come up against they've never lost long term. Durkon was in many ways what held the party together, and not just like this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0006.html). The loss of Durkon can be a motivator for character growth. Maybe you guys are right that Durkula won't stick around but that doesn't mean that Durkon will come back.

jidasfire

2016-01-05, 12:51 AM

I think you're just being contrarian at this point. Yes, it's possible that Durkon, a primary member of the Order of the Stick, you know, the characters the story is about, will die for good at the 6/7ths mark and leave the team depleted and underprepared to face Xykon, (not to mention wasting the whole idea of the spell he created becoming a total shaggy dog story) but it's not too likely. Why, you ask?

Because what's happening now is Durkon's story.

At the moment it may not seem like it, because he's been out of commission for a bit, but bit by bit, we've been getting his origin, his childhood, his family, in direct flashbacks no less, which is something we've gotten for almost none of the other members of the Order. Oh, we get the gist of their pasts through various means, but no one has been given as much detail as Durkon is getting at the moment. And I don't think that's an accident. We're learning, bit by bit, that Durkon and his life are not as bland and one-dimensional as he's often accused of being. It's being hinted that there are secrets about his life and family even he doesn't know, and they may soon bear fruit.

More than this, Durkon is now in essentially the ultimate crucible of his greatest flaws: his passivity. Sure, he's helpful and kind and makes friends easily because he accepts people as they are, but he's always been content to hide his light, significant as it is, behind a bushel, and let the others take the forefront. Now, he's trapped in a situation where he can do almost nothing, where he's imprisoned in his own body, trapped and surrounded by an enemy who knows his every memory and weakness and is using them to destroy him, his friends, his people, and even the world itself. It's worse by a mile than anything the rest of the Order have suffered, and yet he's already slowly finding ways to fight back. He's not there yet; the vampire hit him pretty hard with its last assault, but the battle's not over, and he could still find a way to turn the tide.

Rich has stated that the Order will grow ready to fight Xykon not by virtue of magic items or experience levels, but by their growth as people. Everything happening to Durkon is forcing him to learn and grow and be someone he never thought he could be. Leaving him dead after that and whisking him out of the story would be an absolutely criminal waste of character development, and I just don't see it going down that way.

PallentisLunam

2016-01-05, 01:19 AM

keybounce

2016-01-05, 01:31 AM

I would say that I remember Rich saying that he originally had the idea of Durkon dying somewhere back around the fourth or fifth comic strip; Durkon had stayed alive between the then and now only because Rich had no way to bring him back to life.

Consider that we are now at a place where there are clerics who can cast raise dead. Durkon has been turned; we've been told that he would not be turned until he had a chance to turn back; the logical literary device is that he will be turned back.

PallentisLunam

2016-01-05, 01:36 AM

He did? Is it archived somewhere?

Jasdoif

2016-01-05, 02:09 AM

Is it archived somewhere?Yes indeed:

One of the things I may have mentioned in Dungeon Crawlin' Fools is that while strip #1 was always the first comic, strip #4 was actually the next one produced. Before I posted it, however, I produced another strip that has never been posted; we'll call it #A.

The events depicted in #A can be summarized as follows: Elan and Haley walk on stage to where Roy is waiting. Looking sad and crying, they inform Roy that they met some undead, and Durkon turned undead. Roy is confused, they reiterate. Roy gets annoyed, says that Durkon's a cleric, so of course he turned undead, stop being so stupid. Haley and Elan walk back to the left where V and Belkar are restraining a Durkon that is a vampire—he literally turned into an undead. They make a crack about how Roy took it really well. Ba dum bump.

I did not post this strip; instead, I went back and decided that rather than one-off gags, I wanted each strip to feed into the events of the next. So I wrote #2 and #3 to get from the already-posted #1 to the already-finished (and now renumbered) #4. But that left me with #A, which if I posted it, would derail my fledgling sense of continuity, because I had no way to undo Durkon's vampirism. In the end, I tabled the joke and drew #5 instead.

However, as a result of that comic, it has always been true that someday, Durkon was going to turn into a vampire. At first, I was just going to save the joke for a day when they would have access to the means to undo it, and then later, I decided to drop the punchline and really make it a major part of what happens. But as a plot element, it literally predates the existence of the Snarl, or the Gates, or any other aspect of the plot—even Xykon himself! All of Durkon's characterization and plot, since 2003, has been leading to him becoming a vampire and the story that would spin out of that. It has influenced hundreds of decisions going back ten years of comic.

PallentisLunam

2016-01-05, 02:21 AM

Oh, wow. So I suppose that settles the question of whether or not we are going to be losing Durkon.

Jasdoif

2016-01-05, 02:33 AM

Oh, wow. So I suppose that settles the question of whether or not we are going to be losing Durkon.Well, in a way we already lost Durkon. It's now a question of if/when/how he'll be coming back. They had the means to resurrect Roy the day after he died, and it still took months (and hundreds of strips) to actually bring him back, with Roy's spirit running floating around commenting most of the time; and Roy's soul wasn't trapped by a malicious vampire spirit willing to torment him with his own memories (although Roy might have considered that a step up from Eugene).

Wildroses

2016-01-05, 07:00 AM

I'd be surprised if the Order went to the final battle they have been working towards for six books short one member. It seems wrong for the kind of story the Giant is trying to tell. If Durkon had previously been established as the most powerful of them all who could seriously threaten Xykon I'd be saying: "Yep, totally doomed. If he's at the battle he'll end up taking away some of the tension and making it too easy for the heroes." But Durkon has been established as one of the six heroes of this story, who have to overcome external and internal obstacles to grow into a person able to overcome the problems/antagonist they are facing.

Now, I'm aware Durkon doesn't have to be alive to overcome the internal obstacle sitting in his head. Durkon has already discovered Durkula's inability to see connections between memories means he can be tricked into drawing the wrong conclusions which could be used against him at some point. Durkon is also going to need to find the mental strength not to allow Durkula to define him by his worst day and face his darkest secrets, which will be a struggle due to his passive nature. Durkon can do this without being alive.

But what tips me towards the Durkon will return are three things. First, resurrection has been established as only requiring a tiny piece of the body and a willing soul to be successful. Durkula's body is going to need to be turned to ash or get somewhere impossible to reach to make this unviable, and with the world in peril I can't see Durkon deciding he'd rather stay dead.

Second, Durkon has friends who desperately want him to come back to life. We have no guarantee Haley, Elan or V are able to kill Durkon or allow someone else to kill Durkon in such a way they have no hope of resurrection. Haley and Elan may find their kind hearts make it hard to kill someone with the face of a friend, even if their heads tell them he must die to save the world. V may also struggle to kill another person with the Familicide guilt weighing hir down. I could see them intervening if Durkula/Durkon is in peril.

Third, Belkar's death is being built up as something that will be sad and climatic. If Durkon dies permanently before him it will rob Belkar's death of this impact and risk the story end being too much of a downer.

Also, I think this is the wrong story to be insisting we shouldn't be making predictions on the basis of story structure and narrative analysis. This is a world in which the characters within the story are also aware of the ways stories typically play out and can use this knowledge to manipulate events.

Chantelune

2016-01-05, 07:12 AM

Oh, wow. So I suppose that settles the question of whether or not we are going to be losing Durkon.

Not so sure. It might have been true when the Giant first wrote that idea and it was supposed to be a joke, as writting off a character just for the sake of a one-liner is a bit much, but the whole "durkon turns vampire" thing is no longer a joke, it's a major plot point. It's no longer "Durkon get vamped for a joke, then is cured back after so the story can go on", so even if Durkon stays dead, that would still be "fine", story wise.

So I wouldn't take that quote as "don't worry, Durkon will be back". Maybe he will, maybe he won't, I have no idea, but I'd be fine with both way, personally.

jidasfire

2016-01-05, 10:39 AM

So a rather long winded way to say, "Nothing bad can happen because Durkon, and the rest of the order, are wearing the finest armor plot can buy." I understand that this is the underpinning of most fiction but maybe just once in a while could we at least try to disguise it?

Why can't Durkon die and still be central to the story? All the things we're learning about him could be the key pieces to the puzzle that allow the order to save the day but without Durkon.

Btw you do realize that the point of a discussion is to be contrarian. If everybody agrees then there is no point to discussing.

Discussion is not necessarily contrarian. To disagree based on actual reason is not the same as disagreeing just to disagree.

Furthermore, I find the term "plot armor" to be one of the more tedious outgrowths of the TV Tropes culture. "Good heavens, this story is about a character, therefore they're probably going to be in it and might ::GASP:: even survive! What an awful contrivance. These authors are truly hacks and should go back to their day jobs." Durkon's coming back because his story isn't over. Is that succinct enough for you?

PallentisLunam

2016-01-05, 11:37 AM

Contrarian: adj Opposing or rejecting popolar opinion; going against current practice

There is nothing in that definition to suggest that someone who is being contrarian is arguing just to argue. And that is not what I am doing. I am proposing the opposite of the popular opinion because it makes for an interesting discussion. If you're not enjoying it you don't have to participate.

It is in fact possible to write a story in which it is not glaringly obvious that the main characters are wearing plot armor. All stories that can be called such will have some degree of plot armor but that doesn't mean that the solution is to wave around suspension of disbelief like a red flag for a bull.

As for making predictions based the comic being a story has caused problems before... (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0454.html)

Deliverance

2016-01-05, 02:02 PM

Has anybody seriously considered the idea that Durkon will never be restored during the run of OOTS?

I certainly have.

It would be super sad but the Oracle does specify that Elan gets a happy ending implying that other people don't. Does anybody think that this might happen? Durkula gets away from the Godsmoot, becomes a recurring villian, fails at destroying the world but without being dusted, and never gets killed until after the main story has ended if at all.
But not in that way. The giant adheres enough to traditional storytelling conventions to prevent anything like that from happening. :smalltongue:

Look, the Giant has proven himself a good enough storyteller many times over that I consider him not only capable of writing an satisfactory ending where Hel's plans are foiled and Durkon is raised from the dead, but also of writing the more difficult one, where Hel's plans are foiled and Durkon's death is final, his soul going fulfilled to its final reward.

Think of it:

Durkon lived by his principles and died in battle defending what he believed in. To the last, he was trying to protect his friends. His soul has now experienced his very memories being misused against his friends. An ending to Durkon's story where he manages despite his seemingly impossible situation to grow in understanding and, by using that, gain the upper hand over the vampire leading it to its destruction and ushering him to a well deserved dwarven afterlife would be a heroic ending, not a tragic ending. (And for Durkon, it would be a happy ending.)

I'm not wedded to the idea; While such a story arc when done right is a powerful narrative, using this as a situation for character growth in a Durkon that is raised from the dead and goes out and applies it in the world could also work well and would probably be easier to write.

So I could see it go either way.

What I can't see happening under any circumstances is for the Giant to decide to break his story by leaving a sympathetic main character's soul enslaved at the end of the story!

Jay R

2016-01-05, 07:19 PM

It's worth pointing out that we haven't lost Durkon. Roy has, but we see him interacting with the vampire every time we look inside his head.

PallentisLunam

2016-01-06, 12:25 PM

Fine, but you know what I mean. Durkon will never be restored to life/able to fill the role he once did.

rodneyAnonymous

2016-01-06, 01:52 PM

I have been assuming we won't. Durkon is dead.

Bulldog Psion

2016-01-06, 02:17 PM

I've thought it quite often. While I don't discount his being raised, I could also see Lurky getting destroyed and Durkon's soul simply departing to "rest beside his fathers."

The thing that suggested it to me first, actually, was the scene in Girard's Pyramid. One of the fantasies was Roy hoisting a beer happily with a living Durkon. I don't know -- seeing that there made it seem more like a bittersweet figment to me than something that actually will happen.

Kish

2016-01-06, 02:53 PM

All other considerations aside, there are, counting the one currently going up on the website, two books left. One day, Hel's scheme will be done, and presumably the High Priest will be, too (see below).

I do not believe Rich is going to write a book (the last book, not the current one) without Durkon in it.
I do not believe the High Priest of Hel is going to remain a threat for as long as Xykon does.
I do not believe the High Priest of Hel will simply leave the story (taking Durkon with him) the way Tarquin did; aside from the Durkon consideration, one thing the past eighteen strips should have established is that the former High Priest of Hel is at least as active a threat to the whole world as Xykon.
I do not believe Roy will at any point say anything that amounts to, "Since we're not getting Durkon back, we will now tackle Xykon without a cleric."

pendell

2016-01-06, 03:11 PM

Durkon is shy/reserved, short, light, not a leader, not super smart, not charismatic. Durkon dies and ends up in an internal hell: his soul hangs in bondage as he watches an evil spirit take over his body and do evil while Durkon has always tried to do good.

This "opposites" structural approach for Durkon's major arc, a contrast to Roy's major arc, will either be resolved by a parallel "Durkon gets raised" like Roy got raised (I bet the over) as the mechanism of getting rid of Durkula for once and for all, or "Durkon doesn't get raised" (the complete opposite) and remains dead (I bet the under). That's a very sour closure to the arc, but not beyond Rich's reach, given that his the final destruction of Nale (and Thog and zz'dtri) came off with coarse brutality. (Well, Roy's use of architecture was sorta cool).

Durkula [the vampire] will be destroyed at the end of this book and Durkon will be raised.

I so predict.

Why?

Because there is a fundamental written into OOTSworld by its author at a bone-deep level, and that is justice. That is, characters get what they dish out, and reap what they sow. If at all possible, their own actions result in their final fate.

Nale suffered a course , brutal end. This is because he was a course, brutal murderer (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0361.html), as was Thog.

That's also why Elan has been guaranteed a happy ending -- because he's a pure and innocent person, and in OOTSworld that alone is sufficient protection to ward off all kinds of harm. His fate will be as good as he himself is.

Part of the escapism and attraction of fairy tales is that, unlike the real world, named characters don't get killed by random accidents. In the real world, good and evil people alike suffer all kinds of misfortune, and some of them experience good things unlooked for.

That's the real world. And if we, the readers, are so fond of it, why are we reading a stick figure fantasy comic ? :)

No, OOTSworld is a world where every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Murderers are themselves murdered, traitors are themselves betrayed, cynical and evil plots to foil prophecies bring about the very fates they were meant to forestall. But acting justly and showing kindness can give one a sort of road runner-like invulnerability, where the worst plans of evil Wile E. Coyotes inexplicably fail as the universe itself conspires to foil them.

That is the kind of author Rich Burlew is. He is not a George R.R. Martin. He is not writing a "realistic" world or a "dark and gritty" world. And if he subverts or parodies various aspects of D&D games it is because he wants them to be closer to his vision of heroic justice, not less.

So in this story every character will get what they deserve, and will be paid back in their own coin.

I so predict.

And because of this the vampire's plot, based on betrayal and murder and deceit, is fated to fail. And faithful Durkon who has always loved his party members and done good , will be raised and see a happy ending at the end of all this darkness.

That may seem a bit after school special-ish, but since I *live* in a real world 24/7 where evil often strikes at random, I can tolerate a better vision in my fantasy stories. Once in awhile, anyway :smallsmile: .

Respectfully,

Brian P.

noce

2016-01-06, 04:45 PM

the Oracle does specify that...

Now that you make me think about it, the prophecy about Durkon is going to be fullfilled soon, given that the vampire Durkon is heading to dwarven lands.

(http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0333.html)

Knaight

2016-01-07, 11:54 AM

Because there is a fundamental written into OOTSworld by its author at a bone-deep level, and that is justice. That is, characters get what they dish out, and reap what they sow. If at all possible, their own actions result in their final fate.

Nale suffered a course , brutal end. This is because he was a course, brutal murderer (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0361.html), as was Thog.

That's also why Elan has been guaranteed a happy ending -- because he's a pure and innocent person, and in OOTSworld that alone is sufficient protection to ward off all kinds of harm. His fate will be as good as he himself is.

...

No, OOTSworld is a world where every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Murderers are themselves murdered, traitors are themselves betrayed, cynical and evil plots to foil prophecies bring about the very fates they were meant to forestall. But acting justly and showing kindness can give one a sort of road runner-like invulnerability, where the worst plans of evil Wile E. Coyotes inexplicably fail as the universe itself conspires to foil them.

That is the kind of author Rich Burlew is. He is not a George R.R. Martin. He is not writing a "realistic" world or a "dark and gritty" world. And if he subverts or parodies various aspects of D&D games it is because he wants them to be closer to his vision of heroic justice, not less.

So in this story every character will get what they deserve, and will be paid back in their own coin.

This applies to main characters, sure. For side characters though, there are no guarantees. Thanh was by all indications an upstanding person, loyal to his city and his comrades and with an upstanding moral code. He also died with the Resistance, crushed by Redcloak when he decided to casually wipe them out. Sangmi was by all indications a good person who absolutely didn't deserve to be killed by Xykon, it still happened. Shojo may have been deceptive, but he by no means betrayed anyone. That didn't prevent Miko from betraying him, and that was the end of that character.

That's not to say that side characters never fall to a mirror of their own actions. You cited Nale and Thog, and there's plenty more that fit that pattern: Tsukiko, Malack, Miko, possibly Tarquin by implication. That people bring about an end that fits them is pretty close to a theme. It's just not all pervasive, and while I'd be very surprised if Durkon didn't eventually fit in this, it doesn't apply to all or even most minor characters.

pendell

2016-01-07, 12:18 PM

That's not to say that side characters never fall to a mirror of their own actions. You cited Nale and Thog, and there's plenty more that fit that pattern: Tsukiko, Malack, Miko, possibly Tarquin by implication. That people bring about an end that fits them is pretty close to a theme. It's just not all pervasive, and while I'd be very surprised if Durkon didn't eventually fit in this, it doesn't apply to all or even most minor characters.

"Most" is a slippery word, so I'm not sure I entirely agree, but I do concede you have a point. This pattern does not apply to everyone we see on-panel in the story , but it does seem to apply pretty well to those characters Rich Burlew wants to tell a story about. The elvish resistance, for example, was un-named, but they still got a dose of karma for their speciesism. The gnomish merchant Belkar killed had done nothing (at least, on-panel) deserving of death, but Belkar murdered him.

It almost seems as if there are two basic classes of character in this story: "Characters we're telling a story about" and "window dressing". Characters in the first category will have a defined arc which will culminate in them being paid back in their own coin; the good with good, the evil with evil.

The second category serve as extras might in a hollywood movie -- seen walking around, manning shops, waiting in restaurants, etc. They also serve as a useful pool of disposable innocents for the villains to perform atrocities on , the better to highlight their evil nature and to demonstrate why their eventual fate is just. :smallamused:.

At any rate, while Rich subverts the paradigm in the end he is telling a classic story where good overcomes evil and beauty/truth/kindness/love overcome treachery/murder/brutality. Which means the treacherous vampire is going to be foiled , probably at the end of this book.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

KorvinStarmast

2016-01-07, 03:43 PM

There are a variety of strips wherein NPC's of varying sorts make 4th wall crossing comments (Rich poking fun at himself and D&D) about how they are just an NPC and they get different treatment.

Two samurai meet Elan in Azure City during the escape ... and they save one's last name just in case they need a name to save them later.

Chimera reveals name and Haley gets mad at Belkar for killing "a recurring villain."

Magic User who is supposed to teleport the party after the rescue of Roy's sister makes numerous "I'm just an NPC that's why I drink" as he's being ignored on screen by the PCs.

Because there is the stark differential between PC's and NPCs in D&D, Rich folds that in very nicely in the strip.

Mad Humanist

2016-01-07, 04:50 PM

Chimera reveals name and Haley gets mad at Belkar for killing "a recurring villain."

The vampire has not revealed his true name, so he can be destroyed with no impact on the story.

KorvinStarmast

2016-01-07, 11:07 PM

The vampire has not revealed his true name, so he can be destroyed with no impact on the story.
Wait a sec, destruction of the vampire makes a huge impact on the story, as it opens the door for a possible Durkon return via resurrection or true resurrection spell. (Expensive as that may be, Haley isn't saving up money to pay Dad's ransom anymore ... )

pendell

2016-01-08, 10:41 AM

Wait a sec, destruction of the vampire makes a huge impact on the story, as it opens the door for a possible Durkon return via resurrection or true resurrection spell. (Expensive as that may be, Haley isn't saving up money to pay Dad's ransom anymore ... )

Yup. When Roy's body was brought back as a bone golem no one doubted that he would be coming back alive.

Actually, that's not entirely true. Back when Roy snuffed it at the end of ... book 3, was it? There was a poster who spent the next year or so arguing that Roy was dead and not coming back. His tagline was "Your Roy is dead, son, accept it."

Fan theories exist primarily for the author to shoot down. :smallamused:. As others have pointed out, this entire book is Durkon's character growth arc, and that arc makes no sense if he stays dead.

.. Come to think of it, can dead or undead people grow in OOTSworld at all? I get the impression that dead/undead don't change ; their personalities are more or less locked at the moment of death ... but doesn't Xykon benefit from XP gain? So he would still at least have the potential for growth and change, wouldn't he?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

KorvinStarmast

2016-01-08, 10:45 AM

... but doesn't Xykon benefit from XP gain? So he would still at least have the potential for growth and change, wouldn't he? I don't think he does, since he's a BBEG and not a PC ... but Red Cloak does gain levels in cleric. (I don't think that a liche can gain levels, but I may be missing something from my less than awesome knowledge of 3.5 rules there).

I'd try to cite a Rich quote about Xykon from one of the quotassium threads, as he's got OoTS rules homebrewed into this cominc, but those threads are clunky in terms of how the search function works here.

RVallant

2016-01-08, 12:12 PM

Roy was always coming back, though I loved the crowd who desperately wanted Miko back... Yeesh.

Anyhoo, my hope is that Durkon stays dead. Permanently. I'm not bound by any concerns that 'it would be weird to have the party meet Xykon 1 short' or any whatnot, Rich could always swerve Helga in as a replacement (oh lulz).

Nah, on a serious note, what could be more dramatic than for the Order to meet Xykon sans Cleric? They may even not need him, there might be a new mcguffin element somewhere, or maybe they're just destined to lose anyway and Durkon's death is the point where they lost. There may be other plot elements that Rich is writing in, and I'm actually more interested in those that he could come up with that actually excludes Durkon.

I wouldn't say no to having him back mind, and he probably will come back, whatever the case may be I'm looking forward to how it all turns out.

Jasdoif

2016-01-08, 12:31 PM

.. Come to think of it, can dead or undead people grow in OOTSworld at all?Yes.
Malack certainly learned and changed over the course of his undeath, or else he would never have been able to manage the complex scheme that he started with Tarquin. Arguably, if Malack were incapable of learning, he would never have "learned" to underestimate Nale, thus negating the impact of his demise. Heck, Crystal just "learned" that Bozzok was bad for her and turned on him, something she never managed to do in her entire mortal life. Some of the characters may believe that only living things can learn, but it's not a thematic statement, or even especially accurate.

I don't think he does, since he's a BBEG and not a PC ... but Red Cloak does gain levels in cleric.And the Oracle talks about regaining an Expert level (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0571.html), so I'm pretty sure NPCs can gain experience points.

(I don't think that a liche can gain levels, but I may be missing something from my less than awesome knowledge of 3.5 rules there).Lich is an acquired template (with a level adjustment) in 3.5; liches can gain levels just as they could while they were still alive (though the level adjustment impacts how much experience they gain from encounters).

KorvinStarmast

2016-01-08, 12:31 PM

Anyhoo, my hope is that Durkon stays dead.
I wouldn't say no to having him back mind, and he probably will come back, whatever the case may be I'm looking forward to how it all turns out.If you check out one of Rich's quotes, he refers to Durkon as "the real Durkon. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20211694&postcount=38)"

To be clear, I completely disagree with the assertion that the emotional arc of the scene "went nowhere" because both Roy and Durkon (real Durkon) are at decidedly different emotional states than they were when this scene started.

Further up in the same thread, he establishes that this book is Durkon's major story arc. Durkon's struggle versus the vampire spirit isn't over yet, and as of this writing the book is about 1/3 over, 2/3 left to go.

Personally, I hope he comes back, since he is the only proper quality control authority for the beer and ale that the OoTS drinks ... and because Cleric of Thor grew on me, even without Thor's might.

Let's map the "internal struggle" issues each main character has:

Haley: that voice in her head always laying on the negative vibe (Finally deals with a good chunk of it)
Versuvius: must have more power, balance profession versus family ... FAIL with family
Belkar: Who are you, really?
Elan: Daddy abandonment issues (Finally overcome)
Roy: Issues with Dad and his motive for this quest to take on Xykon and get that oath off of the family record (also internal torment any leader has with a dysfunctional group)
Durkon: two core issues are massively missing his homeland, and now struggle with an evil spirit within his mortal shell

Mad Humanist

2016-01-09, 06:38 AM

Haley: that voice in her head always laying on the negative vibe (Finally deals with a good chunk of it)
Elan: Daddy abandonment issues (Finally overcome)
Roy: Issues with Dad and his motive for this quest to take on Xykon and get that oath off of the family record (also internal torment any leader has with a dysfunctional group)

I would say all of these are about the character finding their own authentic self rather than what their father would want them to be. The details of course differ in each case.

Deliverance

2016-01-10, 03:18 AM

Fan theories exist primarily for the author to shoot down. :smallamused:. As others have pointed out, this entire book is Durkon's character growth arc, and that arc makes no sense if he stays dead.
I guess that depends on which storytelling tradition you grew up with. :)

As an example, I was brought up reading Norse sagas, and Norse, Greek and Roman mythology tempered by modern fantasy, so while I can appreciate a story where the good guys experience character growth and live to let it impact the world, for me there's no requirement for a character to end up alive at the end of the story of his growth for his actions or growth through the story to make sense.

Durkon has already had one heroic ending. Topping that by somehow defeating the vampire and saving his friends through his character growth providing him critical information, freeing his soul to enjoy its just reward, could be awesome.

Now, for the many reasons that Kish enumerated earlier, and for the further reason of how the Giant has approached storytelling hitherho, I expect that Durkon will live again, but I utterly reject the notion that Durkon needs to live for his growth to have meaning. It all depends on what story the author wishes to tell, which messages he wishes to convey, and whether he's up to the task of doing so.

unbeliever536

2016-01-10, 04:29 AM

I guess that depends on which storytelling tradition you grew up with. :)

As an example, I was brought up reading Norse sagas, and Norse, Greek and Roman mythology tempered by modern fantasy, so while I can appreciate a story where the good guys experience character growth and live to let it impact the world, for me there's no requirement for a character to end up alive at the end of the story of his growth for his actions or growth through the story to make sense.

Durkon has already had one heroic ending. Topping that by somehow defeating the vampire and saving his friends through his character growth providing him critical information, freeing his soul to enjoy its just reward, could be awesome.

Now, for the many reasons that Kish enumerated earlier, and for the further reason of how the Giant has approached storytelling hitherho, I expect that Durkon will live again, but I utterly reject the notion that Durkon needs to live for his growth to have meaning. It all depends on what story the author wishes to tell, which messages he wishes to convey, and whether he's up to the task of doing so.

You're right that Durkon's survival is not necessitated by his growth. Durkon's story would end fine and dandy with his death. But this is an ensemble story. It is not a series of stories about Roy, Elan, Haley, Belkar, Vaarsuuvius, Elan again, and now Durkon and Belkar. It is the story of the Order of the Stick. For Durkon to remain dead for the entirety of the last two books, for his entire story function to have been to introduce the former High Priest, would mean he was never really a part of the Order at all. If Durkon remains dead, then all these trips into his memories, all the time spent on him since he stopped being a functioning member of the Order, were just a giant waste of time. Remember that when he first learned Durkon was dead, Roy was ready to give up entirely (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0881.html). Durkon is a critical part of the team that this story is about, and it doesn't make any sense for him to not return to contributing directly towards that team's successes before the end of the story. Similarly, I don't expect Belkar to be killed off until the last book, probably not until towards the end. (He might be killed and continue to be part of the team in a subversion of the prophecy, but he won't be killed off. Also note the treatment of his prophecy as an implicit time limit on the story.)