"Where she pretends she's horrified while secretly thrilled"

[Justyz]

Durkula talks about Durkon doing this - pretending to be horrified but being thrilled. What's he referring to? Are there moments that we saw durkon doing this face :smalleek: while we knew he was thrilled?

[Fyraltari]

Durkon* believes Durkon is secretly enjoying all this because he acts on how Durkon felt on his worst day. He believes "you at your worst" is the truest expression of your self (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1007.html). He can't fathom that Durkon is not taking any pleasure in bloody disproportionnate revenge anymore than Tarquin (http://http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0783.html) can.

It seems that villains not understanding that people can be better than they are is something of a reccurent theme in this comic.

Basically: He's wrong. that never happened. He is just projecting his own reactions on Durkon.

[factotum]

Yeah, what Fyraltari says. Durkula can't see how Durkon feels about anything he's doing, he can only see his memories, so any statement he makes like this is based on his own preconceptions. "But I'm bringing righteous revenge to the Dwarves just like you wanted 20 years ago when they kicked you out into the snow, you must be secretly thrilled at that, surely?".

[Helmar v EB]

It does not even have to be that Durkon* believes that Durkon "pretends she's horrified while secretly thrilled". Its just that he has so much fighting going on, that he can't belive that Ponchos host is not trying to fight back. More like: "She is not fighting back? not even a little bit, by pretending that she is horrified?" At least, this was myimpression.

[JeenLeen]

I figured it was a reference to a... well, not sure if trope, or cliche, or what is the right word... but something sometimes seen in media when a person outwardly acts reluctant to resistant to do evil deeds, but inwardly is enjoying it. Perhaps even in denial that they enjoy it, but are really liking it.

At least, I've seen media where a demon, corrupt official, etc. is tempting someone with the idea that they'd really enjoy it, and it's a pragmatic solution, etc. And sometimes the tempted one (if the plot has them turning into a villain) falls because they really enjoy it once they get a taste of Evil.

BUT agreeing with others that there is no indication such is the case with Durkon.

[hamishspence]

I figured it was a reference to a... well, not sure if trope, or cliche, or what is the right word... but something sometimes seen in media when a person outwardly acts reluctant to resistant to do evil deeds, but inwardly is enjoying it. Perhaps even in denial that they enjoy it, but are really liking it.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilFeelsGood
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThisIsYourBrainOnEvil

The "outward reluctance" might be:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IDidWhatIHadToDo

[Fyraltari]

I figured it was a reference to a... well, not sure if trope, or cliche, or what is the right word... but something sometimes seen in media when a person outwardly acts reluctant to resistant to do evil deeds, but inwardly is enjoying it. Perhaps even in denial that they enjoy it, but are really liking it.
Temptation? Hypocrysy ?

[Lord Torath]

Kind of like Red Cloak in panels 8-12 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0082.html).

[137beth]

Durkon* believes Durkon is secretly enjoying all this because he acts on how Durkon felt on his worst day. He believes "you at your worst" is the truest expression of your self (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1007.html). He can't fathom that Durkon is not taking any pleasure in bloody disproportionnate revenge anymore than Tarquin (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/newreply.php?p=22835065&noquote=1) can.

It seems that villains not understanding that people can be better than they are is something of a reccurent theme in this comic.

Basically: He's wrong. that never happened. He is just projecting his own reactions on Durkon.

FYI: your second link is broken. I think you meant for it to go here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0783.html).

[Fyraltari]

FYI: your second link is broken. I think you meant for it to go here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0783.html).

Thank you, I got my Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V confused there. :smallsigh:

[Kish]

It does not even have to be that Durkon* believes that Durkon "pretends she's horrified while secretly thrilled". Its just that he has so much fighting going on, that he can't belive that Ponchos host is not trying to fight back. More like: "She is not fighting back? not even a little bit, by pretending that she is horrified?" At least, this was myimpression.
Yes, this.

I don't see why people are so certain that Greg was talking about Durkon when he suggested the possibility of pretended horror.

[Fyraltari]

Yes, this.

I don't see why people are so certain that Greg was talking about Durkon when he suggested the possibility of pretended horror.

It's the way he phrases it, "does your host does that thing..." followed by something we've seen Durkon try, "She doesn't even do that thing...", "I'm so jealous" strongly implies the Creature Preacher is talking from (perceived) experience.

By the way, I just love how we get to see villains talk shop and plan vacations, it makes them feel so much more real.

[martianmister]

He's not talking about Durkon.

[factotum]

He's not talking about Durkon.

Then who is Durkula talking about? He says:

"She doesn't even do that thing where she pretends she's horrified while being secretly thrilled?"

This is clearly a comparison with some other spirit he knows, because how would he know what the other vampire's host is like? The only likely candidate for that comparison is Durkon.

[Keltest]

Then who is Durkula talking about? He says:

"She doesn't even do that thing where she pretends she's horrified while being secretly thrilled?"

This is clearly a comparison with some other spirit he knows, because how would he know what the other vampire's host is like? The only likely candidate for that comparison is Durkon.

Or it could just be he's referencing a fairly common trope, as has been done in the past in this webcomic.

[Fyraltari]

Or it could just be he's referencing a fairly common trope, as has been done in the past in this webcomic.

He does say he's jealous.

[martianmister]

Then who is Durkula talking about? He says:

"She doesn't even do that thing where she pretends she's horrified while being secretly thrilled?"

He's not talking about any specific person, he's talking about a situation that vampire spirits usually face in their job.


He does say he's jealous.

He's jealous because his comrade is unusually lucky at the body she got.

[King of Nowhere]

It could be a common reaction. If the vampire is the personification of your darkest side, then it would make sense that once would be both horrified and thrilled. In a "I've needed to resist the urge of doing this for a very long time" kind of way

[Synesthesy]

The fact that Greg doesn't understand Durkon at all, that he doesn't understand Durkon's feelings, and the true meaning of Durkon's memories, is a big part of the plot.

Durkula things that everyone is the same, that everyone has a dark, evil side that waits to came out. So he may think that actually Durkon enjoys Greg's revenge on the dwarven system that made Durkon suffer. And Durkon has enough reasons to hate dwarven society, as other exiled cleric dwarves do, so for Greg it all makes sense.

We know that Durkon is better then how he was in his worst day. Greg can't understand this. Maybe Greg will die just because of this.

[martianmister]

Why would he thinks that Durkon is secretly thrilled about his actions?

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Or it could just be he's referencing a fairly common trope, as has been done in the past in this webcomic.

This is also the takeaway that I had at first. Especially because I really don’t see why the High Priest of Hel would believe Durkon actually enjoys what’s going on.

[TRH]

Why would he thinks that Durkon is secretly thrilled about his actions?

The post above you explains well enough. To recap, Jerkon doesn't believe that people can change. "You are what you were on your worst day." On Durkon's worst day, he castigated his own people for exiling him and leaving his infirm mother to fend for herself. The vampire doesn't understand that Durkon is no longer in that same state of mind, and thinks that that same vengefulness has simply been suppressed.

[martianmister]

The post above you explains well enough. To recap, Jerkon doesn't believe that people can change. "You are what you were on your worst day." On Durkon's worst day, he castigated his own people for exiling him and leaving his infirm mother to fend for herself. The vampire doesn't understand that Durkon is no longer in that same state of mind, and thinks that that same vengefulness has simply been suppressed.

Not really true.

High Priest of Hel: "That's you. You said those words. You can hang there and pretend that you're so much nobler than I am--but for that one moment? You felt exactly what I feel.

[Fyraltari]

Followed by :
"You are who you are on your worst day. Everything else is a comforting lie you tell yourself to numb the pain".

[TRH]

Followed by :
"You are who you are on your worst day. Everything else is a comforting lie you tell yourself to numb the pain".

Exactly. I'd put special emphasis on "numb the pain". To the vampire, wounds never heal; they just get bandaged.

[martianmister]

What HP said to him is not some kind of denial on HP's part. Or else Durkon would defend himself, but he accepted HP's accusations because he know that HP is right. Actually, what HP said to him is very similar to what Rich Burlew said about Tarquin's "worst day".


He IS that, 99.999999999% of his life, but you are looking at his very worst day (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=16575274&postcount=75)...
Well, if few people think that, then count me as among those few. You reveal who you really are under stress—stress doesn't magically turn you into someone else unrelated to who you usually are. The fact that you may not have ever known that this is who you were doesn't change anything. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=16575337&postcount=79)

[zimmerwald1915]

To recap, Jerkon doesn't believe that people can change.
To be fair, he's not wrong. People can only add to themselves, they can't cut away parts they don't like, at least, not without very powerful and dangerous quasi-medical interventions.

[factotum]

To be fair, he's not wrong. People can only add to themselves, they can't cut away parts they don't like, at least, not without very powerful and dangerous quasi-medical interventions.

I disagree. It's possible to lose aspects of your personality or even memories given enough time. It's 20 years since Durkon was kicked out into the snow, he isn't the same angry young dwarf now that he was back then; and I doubt he would ever have remembered the "To Hel with ye!" if he hadn't been explicitly shown it by Durkula.

[zimmerwald1915]

I disagree. It's possible to lose aspects of your personality or even memories given enough time.
Sure, fair enough, diseases like Alzheimer's exist. It's not really a process you can will to happen though, or guide intentionally so that you only lose the parts you don't like.


It's 20 years since Durkon was kicked out into the snow, he isn't the same angry young dwarf now that he was back then; and I doubt he would ever have remembered the "To Hel with ye!" if he hadn't been explicitly shown it by Durkula.
Now that's just straight-up wrong. When Durkon finishes the scene that ends with him getting tossed out the gate of Firmament, he knows exactly what's coming next before being shown it. "I dinnae need to see," (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1007.html) he says.

[Darth Paul]

Sure, fair enough, diseases like Alzheimer's exist. It's not really a process you can will to happen though, or guide intentionally so that you only lose the parts you don't like.

...
When Durkon finishes the scene that ends with him getting tossed out the gate of Firmament, he knows exactly what's coming next before being shown it. "I dinnae need to see," (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1007.html) he says.

Not a case of losing aspects of your personality, so much as changing over time until you're not that same person any more. I'm not the person I was 30 years ago in most ways. I'm more contemplative, more generous, more considerate of others (I hope). And while I do remember my selfish actions of long ago, they're not with me from moment to moment. I've put them behind me. Unless something happens that brings my long-ago to mind, I don't think about it... but if I'm suddenly reminded of something I regret, it can come back to me just like that.

But because Evil Cannot Comprehend Good (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilCannotComprehendGood), Durkula thinks that character development ends at the lowest point in your life, and everything beyond that is merely a lie to make others think we're not the hateful and selfish people we secretly know ourselves to be. People never change for the better, they can only get worse and worse, according to this point of view. I'm still a selfish jerk, I've just been putting on a front for the rest of the world for the last 30 years.

[zimmerwald1915]

Not a case of losing aspects of your personality, so much as changing over time until you're not that same person any more. I'm not the person I was 30 years ago in most ways. I'm more contemplative, more generous, more considerate of others (I hope).
You're making my point.

[Darth Paul]

You're making my point.

Pretty considerate of me, don't you think? :smallbiggrin:

[factotum]

Not a case of losing aspects of your personality, so much as changing over time until you're not that same person any more.
.
.
.
People never change for the better, they can only get worse and worse, according to this point of view. I'm still a selfish jerk, I've just been putting on a front for the rest of the world for the last 30 years.

So...wouldn't you say you've lost the aspect of your personality that made you a selfish jerk 30 years ago, then? I'm not seeing a substantive difference between "this part of my personality changed" and "I lost this part of my personality and replaced it with something else".

[Darth Paul]

Maybe it's just a semantic difference, but to me, "lost" implies that I have no memories of "the former me", that aspect is as if it never existed. "Changed" acknowledges that I was like that once, and somewhere under the surface, the "past me" exists, I can remember things I did, I remember what I was like, but I've evolved and chosen not to be that person anymore.

[zimmerwald1915]

So...wouldn't you say you've lost the aspect of your personality that made you a selfish jerk 30 years ago, then? I'm not seeing a substantive difference between "this part of my personality changed" and "I lost this part of my personality and replaced it with something else".
With apologies to @Darth Paul for speaking out of turn, I read "added restraint and consideration" in that post. Not "cut out impulsiveness or selfishness."

Hence "he's making my point for me" by his example. Development - as a person or as a fictional character - is primarily additive, not subtractive.

[Kish]

I'm not at all sure "you can't subtract anything from your personality, you can only add that thing's opposite" is a meaningful distinction when talking about things like restraint, impulsiveness, generosity, and selfishness.

[Keltest]

I'm not at all sure "you can't subtract anything from your personality, you can only add that thing's opposite" is a meaningful distinction when talking about things like restraint, impulsiveness, generosity, and selfishness.

Indeed. On a sliding scale, the difference between adding selflessness and subtracting selfishness is.. I'm not even sure it can be called a semantic difference at that point.

[Darth Paul]

With apologies to @Darth Paul for speaking out of turn, I read "added restraint and consideration" in that post. Not "cut out impulsiveness or selfishness."

Hence "he's making my point for me" by his example. Development - as a person or as a fictional character - is primarily additive, not subtractive.

No apology necessary.


I'm not at all sure "you can't subtract anything from your personality, you can only add that thing's opposite" is a meaningful distinction when talking about things like restraint, impulsiveness, generosity, and selfishness.

Is it more meaningful to say these things exist on a continuum, and movement is between one end of the continuum and the other?

Most of us, I've observed, are more or less generous or selfish depending on the circumstances, depending on the value of what's at stake, even just mood at the time. The same would go for courage/cowardice, impulsiveness/restraint, and so on... with most leaning toward one or the other, but everyone having some of each in their character.

I mean, I try to be a generous person, I'm good for a couple of dollars, but on the other hand, to ask for $50 you have to be a close friend. And even my close friends are going to have to have a good reason for me to loan them $500.

[zimmerwald1915]

I'm not at all sure "you can't subtract anything from your personality, you can only add that thing's opposite" is a meaningful distinction when talking about things like restraint, impulsiveness, generosity, and selfishness.
Of course it's meaningful, because you're still left having to manage what you always were and will never stop being with what you want to be. You can't just "add restraint" to impulsiveness, and have done with it, you have to consciously exercise restraint or fall back into impulsiveness.

[Keltest]

Of course it's meaningful, because you're still left having to manage what you always were and will never stop being with what you want to be. You can't just "add restraint" to impulsiveness, and have done with it, you have to consciously exercise restraint or fall back into impulsiveness.

Again, where is the difference here? What do you think "adding restraint" entails if not actually exercising that restraint?

[a_flemish_guy]

hasn't nobody here ever wished harm upon somebody for driving too slow or taking too long at the register?

it usually lasts only a second and afterwards I'm thinking "well, that was cathartic" and go back along my mery way, I don't really wish them harm in the grand scheme of me

the thing is if at that moment somebody would have taken a copy of me and my mood and then later replaced me with that copy who's stuck into that moment then I'd be horrified at what "I" would be doing, even if at one point it was exactly what I would have done

bassicly the FHPOH isn't a twisted version of durkon's soul, rather it's more like a statue made of durkon at his absolute lowest point

[Vinyadan]

About changing yourself: Hamlet, 3, 4:



HAMLET

Mother, for love of grace,
Lay not that mattering unction to your soul,
That not your trespass, but my madness speaks:
It will but skin and film the ulcerous place,
Whilst rank corruption, mining all within,
Infects unseen. Confess yourself to heaven;
Repent what's past; avoid what is to come;
And do not spread the compost on the weeds,
To make them ranker. Forgive me this my virtue;
For in the fatness of these pursy times
Virtue itself of vice must pardon beg,
Yea, curb and woo for leave to do him good.

QUEEN GERTRUDE

O Hamlet, thou hast cleft my heart in twain.

HAMLET

O, throw away the worser part of it,
And live the purer with the other half.
Good night: but go not to mine uncle's bed;
Assume a virtue, if you have it not.
That monster, custom, who all sense doth eat,
Of habits devil, is angel yet in this,
That to the use of actions fair and good
He likewise gives a frock or livery,
That aptly is put on. Refrain to-night,
And that shall lend a kind of easiness
To the next abstinence: the next more easy;
For use almost can change the stamp of nature,
And either [ appease ] the devil, or throw him out
With wondrous potency.

[zimmerwald1915]

About changing yourself: Hamlet, 3, 4:
Belkar made a similar point about habits.