Greg is going to reject Durkon's epiphany.

[rferries]

There's been a lot of foreshadowing about how Durkon is subtly influencing/persuading Greg to be Good, but I think it's a fake-out and that the PCs will be saved some other way (e.g. I quite like the other theory that Durkon's mother and her friends will burst in to the rescue).

My reasoning: every vampire has access to the entirety of its hosts memories (and in fact must (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1089.html) eventually review them all). If a vampire can be influenced in this way, why aren't all of them simply carbon copies of what they were in life (alignment and all)? Are we meant to think that Durkon's personal experiences (touching as they are) are so much more powerful than every other vampire victims' that he can overturn the convictions of a spirit of pure supernatural Evil?

Plus, it'll make Hel look pretty stupid if her custom-made undead champion is so easily swayed.

I think it's much more likely that Greg will take a moment of contemplation, then burst out laughing at Durkon and scoff at his naiveté and his mother's foolish charity. Right before he gets staked, hopefully :)

[hroþila]

A fakeout is a distinct possibility and also my first instinct upon reading the latest comic.

However, it should be noted that not all hosts will have been the same as Durkon. We've been shown Durkon taking his mom too literally, learning the wrong lesson and taking it to extreme and unreasonable lengths (see the lesson about helping people without being asked), which could mean he did the same with Sigdi's lesson about taking those feelings and burying them in a dark corner of your soul. Which was expressed in similar terms to the way we're told about a host's darkest moments and traits, and how they are key to forming the personality of the vampire spirit, i. e. those feelings might be embedded into the vampire's very spirit from the moment he was created, and Hel might not have been able to change that because...

...Vampires were not designed simply to be Hel's puppets, they were created as part of the world, just as ninjas or whatever, they might even have been the idea of some other Death god in the first place, and they're imperfect pre-existing tools for the task at hand: we're explicitly told that vampires are free-willed and that a different vampire might have rejected Hel's plan. They're not spirits of pure supernatural Evil, they're free-willed negative-energy spirits whose biology (er, necrology?) and circumstances predispose them towards Evil. We know that they're influenced by their hosts, whether that means picking up their accent (Vamp Durkon) or coming to identify themselves so much with their host that they tell about their host's pre-vampiric experiences as if they were their own (Malack). We've also been shown that Vamp Durkon is at least as passionate about avenging the wrongs that were done to his host (whether he realizes or not) as he is about serving Hel per se.

There's also metastory reasons: Durkon's spirit is most likely going to play a key role in the thwarting of Hel's plans, and there's not many other plausible ways for him to do it.

So to summarize: this might well be a fakeout, and it's not even particularly unlikely that it is. But IMO all the pieces also seem to fit the theory that you're currently rejecting. Well, I don't think Vamp Durkon will stop being Evil any time soon, but other than that.

[EmperorSarda]

If a vampire can be influenced in this way, why aren't all of them simply carbon copies of what they were in life (alignment and all)?

Because the vampire isn't going along chronological memories. The vampire starts at the darkest moment. So not only is the vampire spirit already an unnatural evil undead creature, but it's baseline in the host is the darkest moments of their host's life.

So, no, they are not going to be carbon copies. Because they start out at different places and pick and choose the memories.

They approach the memories at a different point of view, and in a different order. So they are going to turn out quite different than their host.

[martianmister]

Obviously whole thing is just a diversion for Durkula and Sigdi and her Fearsome Five will enter the hall to have their Wednesday dinner and then they destroy the vampires and save the day and save the world and it will be awesome and Durkon is just telling all this to Durkula so it could be really cool when others came. :smallcool:

[rferries]

A fakeout is a distinct possibility and also my first instinct upon reading the latest comic.

However, it should be noted that not all hosts will have been the same as Durkon. We've been shown Durkon taking his mom too literally, learning the wrong lesson and taking it to extreme and unreasonable lengths (see the lesson about helping people without being asked), which could mean he did the same with Sigdi's lesson about taking those feelings and burying them in a dark corner of your soul. Which was expressed in similar terms to the way we're told about a host's darkest moments and traits, and how they are key to forming the personality of the vampire spirit, i. e. those feelings might be embedded into the vampire's very spirit from the moment he was created, and Hel might not have been able to change that because...

...Vampires were not designed simply to be Hel's puppets, they were created as part of the world, just as ninjas or whatever, they might even have been the idea of some other Death god in the first place, and they're imperfect pre-existing tools for the task at hand: we're explicitly told that vampires are free-willed and that a different vampire might have rejected Hel's plan. They're not spirits of pure supernatural Evil, they're free-willed negative-energy spirits whose biology (er, necrology?) and circumstances predispose them towards Evil. We know that they're influenced by their hosts, whether that means picking up their accent (Vamp Durkon) or coming to identify themselves so much with their host that they tell about their host's pre-vampiric experiences as if they were their own (Malack). We've also been shown that Vamp Durkon is at least as passionate about avenging the wrongs that were done to his host (whether he realizes or not) as he is about serving Hel per se.

There's also metastory reasons: Durkon's spirit is most likely going to play a key role in the thwarting of Hel's plans, and there's not many other plausible ways for him to do it.

So to summarize: this might well be a fakeout, and it's not even particularly unlikely that it is. But IMO all the pieces also seem to fit the theory that you're currently rejecting. Well, I don't think Vamp Durkon will stop being Evil any time soon, but other than that.

Many salient points... but I'd argue:

1. Greg has already murdered (and forcibly vamped) numerous innocent people, has shown appallingly callous cruelty (especially to Roy), and has been genuinely willing to go along with a plan that would annihilate the entire population of a planet and condemn the souls of all living dwarves to an eternity of damnation (and set up an eternal tyrannical undead dictatorship in the next world). Innately or not he is sociopathically evil with a capital 'E'; if he's redeemed/swayed by Durkon's memories that will be a little hard to swallow. In some ways I'd find it more believable if Xykon revealed that he was bored of immortality and this was all an elaborate plot to have the PCs kill him (or to destroy the universe himself), so he could die in a blaze of glory.

2. Malack didn't sympathise with his living self; if anything made it clear he held his past life ("an ignorant barbarian shaman") in contempt and viewed resurrection as a death sentence. Similarly, any time Greg has sympathised with Durkon's unfair treatment seems more like an attempt to needle/taunt Durkon than truly advocate for him.

3. I admit the metastory will be a major factor here. There has been loads of foreshadowing for Greg being redeemed so it wouldn't be totally out of the blue, I just think it'll be more satisfying if it was all a bait and switch.


Because the vampire isn't going along chronological memories. The vampire starts at the darkest moment. So not only is the vampire spirit already an unnatural evil undead creature, but it's baseline in the host is the darkest moments of their host's life.

So, no, they are not going to be carbon copies. Because they start out at different places and pick and choose the memories.

They approach the memories at a different point of view, and in a different order. So they are going to turn out quite different than their host.

Sure, it just seems silly that any vampire would be influenced by any of its hosts memories, especially if they start out at the darkest point. They should be jaded, cynical evil spirits that are unmoved by any memory, no matter how touching.


Obviously whole thing is just a diversion for Durkula and Sigdi and her Fearsome Five will enter the hall to have their Wednesday dinner and then they destroy the vampires and save the day and save the world and it will be awesome and Durkon is just telling all this to Durkula so it could be really cool when others came. :smallcool:

Haha yes, this is my favourite of the current theories!

[warmachine]

I don't see Greg dismissing this so easily. Panels 2 and 3 of #1129 shows Greg angrily regarding such altruism as illogical. Note the phrase 'logical sense'. This suggests Greg thinks interactions are made only in rational self-interest, not community interest. There are no higher ideals worthy of existence by itself, only groups or powerful beings to subscribe to obtain benefits. The anger, rather than bemusement, suggests proximity to an existential crisis.

How a person responds to any crisis differs widely but rarely by casually dismissing it.

[ThePhantasm]

I don't know about whether he will "reject" it or not, but I think Durkon's epiphany will allow Durkon to break free and loosen or destroy Durkula's control over him. After all, Durkula is just Durkon "on his worst day" with all of his "unresolved resentment." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1007.html) The control that he has over Durkon is derived from Durkon's darkest and deepest memories... so Durkula thought, anyways, but as the newest strips reveal, Durkon's true deepest memories are good memories.

[Gullintanni]

I think a fake out is a serious possibility; however, the one major difference between Durkon and every other vampire in the OoTS-verse is that Durkon is a PC.

His life is, by definition, extraordinary, even within the construct of Dungeons & Dragons, ergo it would make sense that the impact of Durkon's memories on Greg's disposition could be equally abnormal and extraordinary.

There's ample justification for Rich taking this story in either direction. I think this one is too close to call.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I don't think if will be a fakeout. I have no clue what kind of insight the vampire is getting from this (maybe that he's not the truest form and real nature of Durkon, but quite the opposite, he's just a collection of rejected bits and Durkon figured out how to reject him again?) but it seems like it will be important anyway.

[KorvinStarmast]

So, no, they are not going to be carbon copies. Because they start out at different places and pick and choose the memories. They approach the memories at a different point of view, and in a different order. So they are going to turn out quite different than their host. Nice point, and a reminder that Roy was right about Durkula: you're not Durkon at all (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1009.html)!
This isn't a struggle within Durkon, this is a struggle between Durkon and Durkula.

[hroþila]

Many salient points... but I'd argue:

1. Greg has already murdered (and forcibly vamped) numerous innocent people, has shown appallingly callous cruelty (especially to Roy), and has been genuinely willing to go along with a plan that would annihilate the entire population of a planet and condemn the souls of all living dwarves to an eternity of damnation (and set up an eternal tyrannical undead dictatorship in the next world). Innately or not he is sociopathically evil with a capital 'E'; if he's redeemed/swayed by Durkon's memories that will be a little hard to swallow. In some ways I'd find it more believable if Xykon revealed that he was bored of immortality and this was all an elaborate plot to have the PCs kill him (or to destroy the universe himself), so he could die in a blaze of glory.
This is indeed a potential problem and it requires a very good execution to work. Personally, I think we're getting that very good execution so far, but a lot depends on how the final payoff is written, and your mileage may vary at any rate.

2. Malack didn't sympathise with his living self; if anything made it clear he held his past life ("an ignorant barbarian shaman") in contempt and viewed resurrection as a death sentence. Similarly, any time Greg has sympathised with Durkon's unfair treatment seems more like an attempt to needle/taunt Durkon than truly advocate for him.
Oh, I didn't mean that Malack sympathized with the pre-vampire shaman, but he certainly thought of his experiences as his own. This is most evident when Malack is talking about longing for a fraternal bond again, something he only experienced through the shaman's memories. Sure, he viewed his host's life with contempt, but he still said "I was the ignorant barbarian shaman". Altogether, it wasn't very different from a living person who made it big in life looking back on their previous life with contempt, and that's the context in which that line about Resurrection being a complicated way of annihilating the person he was then should be understood, in my opinion.

As for Vamp Durkon merely trying to taunt Durkon, I disagree with that interpretation, but it could go either way really.

[Vingelot]

Sounds like quite the happy end: Sigdi enters the hall and gets slain, ensuring her soul can go to Valhalla. Greg loses control over Durkon, who can, thanks to the now resolved memories, accept her death. Mass cure moderate wounds.

[skim172]

I'm not sure it would even count as a "fake-out" - it would only be a fake-out if you believed that redemption was the likely and logical narrative path for Greg. As much as many of us want Vampire Durkon to be a thing (he's like Durkon, but dark and gritty and kewwl), it would feel utterly contrived for Greg to just "realize the error of his ways" or "merge with Durkon" or some other comic book-ish villain-becomes-broody-antihero formula ("gets taken in by Batman").

The Giant has mostly stuck with a realistic depiction of personal morality and motivation. It would be unrealistic for Greg - a mass murderer with cosmo-cidal ambitions whose entire existence is in order to carry out the plan of a hate-filled deity with whom he is in direct communication - to set aside all that because of one encounter with a good person.

That said, it is quite a powerful encounter, and it's one that's definitely troubling to Greg. It defies everything he's about and one that causes him great psychological distress as something that doesn't fit. Perhaps - if this was that kind of story - this could be the first important step towards Greg's eventual redemption way down the road, as an important revelation that his worldview is flawed. But it seems unlikely we are going to be tracing Greg's long, winding road to Goodness.

I think this revelation from Durkon isn't intended to persuade Greg to the side of good or to distract him or to do anything instrumental. What it represents is the complete denial and rejection of Greg's analysis of Durkon and Greg's worldview. The memory reveals that Greg is entirely wrong about Durkon and Durkon's motivations. Greg thought Durkon was defined by unhappiness and repressed emotions and "your worst day"; but Durkon is defined instead by his willingness to set aside his own unhappiness and grievances for the sake of others - in accordance with the example and guidance of his mother. All those jabs and barbs that Greg thought was attacking Durkon at his very core - all completely off-target.

In their personal battle of wills, Durkon, who seemed to be vulnerable and on the defensive, actually remains resolute and unaffected. This is his victory.


What I do think could happen is that Greg will decide, "Screw this. Leave them - and let's just go finish the plan." That could be what saves the Order from death. Greg could've always just stayed hidden, vamped the council, and carried out Hel's plan without fighting Roy. He purposely goaded Roy in for a final confrontation that wasn't entirely necessary. He wanted to defeat the Order for personal satisfaction - and to make Durkon watch and suffer in his helplessness. This revelation from Durkon might be stressing enough to put Greg off that - to make him lose his taste for tormenting Durkon. Whatever, the Order's defeated, fine - we've wasted enough time on this stupid sideshow. Let's leave them to die, and go finish this stupid thing.

[brian 333]

I don't know about whether he will "reject" it or not, but I think Durkon's epiphany will allow Durkon to break free and loosen or destroy Durkula's control over him. After all, Durkula is just Durkon "on his worst day" with all of his "unresolved resentment." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1007.html) The control that he has over Durkon is derived from Durkon's darkest and deepest memories... so Durkula thought, anyways, but as the newest strips reveal, Durkon's true deepest memories are good memories.

Durkula does not 'control' Durkon. He is not possessing him. Durkon is dead, and cannot, without outside help, ever lift a finger of his former body.

Whatever The Giant has in mind, it cannot be that Durkon 'breaks free,' even momentarily, from Durkula's control.

Even if Durkon subsequently integrates the experience and heals from it, he remains the Durkon who had that bad day, and that is enough for Durkula. No amount of epiphany can remove that day from his past, and Durkula will always fit in the metaphorical hole it created.

Durkon's body now belongs to Durkula, and it will until the vampire is destroyed. At that point, if someone cares to, Durkon can be raised from the dead. Until then, any theory which involves Durkon controlling his corpse in any way cannot work.

[Kish]

The Giant has mostly stuck with a realistic depiction of personal morality and motivation. It would be unrealistic for [...] entire existence is in order to carry out the plan of a hate-filled deity with whom he is in direct communication
Y'might want to use different words in place of the bolded ones. Just saying.

(Anticipating certain forum smart alecks, believing it and it actually being true are entirely different.)

[jwhouk]

One thing I'm confused about - doesn't destroying a vampire essentially destroy the accompanying body (similar to what happened to Malack)?

That'd mean there'd be nothing for the OOTS people to even resurrect of Durkon.

[brian 333]

One thing I'm confused about - doesn't destroying a vampire essentially destroy the accompanying body (similar to what happened to Malack)?

That'd mean there'd be nothing for the OOTS people to even resurrect of Durkon.

All you need for a Raise Dead spell ito work s a single grain of dust from the corpse. It can't be something harvested while the being was still alive, Vampire dust works just fine.

[Kish]

One thing I'm confused about - doesn't destroying a vampire essentially destroy the accompanying body (similar to what happened to Malack)?

That'd mean there'd be nothing for the OOTS people to even resurrect of Durkon.
If anyone had gathered up Malack's ashes after he burned and cast Resurrection on them...

...well, probably nothing would have happened, because he mentioned being undead for 200 years and Resurrection works on those who have been dead for up to 10 years/caster level. But if an epic-level caster had done so, it would have brought back a lizardfolk shaman who never actually appeared in the comic.

(The weaker Raise Dead wouldn't work; it requires a reasonably intact corpse, and it doesn't work on former undead anyway.)

[hroþila]

All you need for a Raise Dead spell ito work s a single grain of dust from the corpse. It can't be something harvested while the being was still alive, Vampire dust works just fine.
No, the spell specifies that the body must be whole. You can get away with raising a body that has been mutilated with one leg chopped off, but in that case the leg remains chopped off when the person comes back to life. If you try Raise Dead on a heap of ashes, it won't work (or maybe the spirit would come back and die immediately, similar to what happened to Hamlet?). They're going to need a Resurrection spell to bring Durkon back.

edit: ninja'd

[Fish]

There's been a lot of foreshadowing about how Durkon is subtly influencing/persuading Greg to be Good, but I think it's a fake-out and that the PCs will be saved some other way (e.g. I quite like the other theory that Durkon's mother and her friends will burst in to the rescue).
It's possible that Rich will go in this direction, but I wouldn't put any money on it. He's contrived a situation in which only Durkon has any influence over events. It's hard to believe he's created that situation specifically for someone else to save the day.

[brian 333]

No, the spell specifies that the body must be whole. You can get away with raising a body that has been mutilated with one leg chopped off, but in that case the leg remains chopped off when the person comes back to life. If you try Raise Dead on a heap of ashes, it won't work (or maybe the spirit would come back and die immediately, similar to what happened to Hamlet?). They're going to need a Resurrection spell to bring Durkon back.

edit: ninja'd

You are correct. Raise wouldn't work on a corpse used for an undead anyway. Resurrection is the correct spell to use.

[ThePhantasm]

It's possible that Rich will go in this direction, but I wouldn't put any money on it. He's contrived a situation in which only Durkon has any influence over events. It's hard to believe he's created that situation specifically for someone else to save the day.

And it has been obviously foreshadowed. Odin outsmarted Hela by maneuvering events so it would be Durkon who was vamped... as only Durkon could overcome the evil spirit possessing him. What we needed was Durkon. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1098.html)

[Doug Lampert]

What I do think could happen is that Greg will decide, "Screw this. Leave them - and let's just go finish the plan." That could be what saves the Order from death. Greg could've always just stayed hidden, vamped the council, and carried out Hel's plan without fighting Roy. He purposely goaded Roy in for a final confrontation that wasn't entirely necessary. He wanted to defeat the Order for personal satisfaction - and to make Durkon watch and suffer in his helplessness. This revelation from Durkon might be stressing enough to put Greg off that - to make him lose his taste for tormenting Durkon. Whatever, the Order's defeated, fine - we've wasted enough time on this stupid sideshow. Let's leave them to die, and go finish this stupid thing.

I'm going to go with the following guess:
1) Greg self-identifies as Durkon on his worst day.
2) Durkon on his worst day wouldn't take any action that would predictably result in his mother and her friends dying without honor and going to Hel.
3) Greg's entire set of actions since his creation have been aimed at a goal of having Sigdi and her friends and all the other dwarves die without honor.

Greg will realize that his actions contradict his self-image, and that there is a way to preserve both his self-image and the plan.

He rushes out of the Hall, probably taking the other vampires with him, to go to the dinner party and kill everyone there in battle.

The dinner party isn't going to break in on Greg, they don't meet in this hall. The dinner party isn't going to beat Greg in a fight, that would be the worst sort of deus ex machina. Greg is going to leave the hall because he needs to kill the dinner party before the Ex-exarch can dominate the council.

What happens next is in the air, but I offer this as the reason Greg doesn't just finish off the order, because he NEEDS to stop Sigdi and company from dying without honor, and being Evil and committed to the plan, he'll take the easy way of "kill them all" as his first plan for how to do so.

[KorvinStarmast]

The dinner party isn't going to break in on Greg, they don't meet in this hall. The dinner party isn't going to beat Greg in a fight, that would be the worst sort of deus ex machina. Greg is going to leave the hall because he needs to kill the dinner party before the Ex-exarch can dominate the council.
But didn't he promise not to harm Durkon's family? Panel 9 of this strip. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1121.html)

[Doug Lampert]

But didn't he promise not to harm Durkon's family? Panel 9 of this strip. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1121.html)

His new little family is Hilgya and Kudzu, he'd be killing the old family.

Being Lawful Evil is all about precise wording.

[martianmister]

What about the fact that Durkula is beginning to talk like Durkon? Seems like something important.

[Synesthesy]

I'm going to go with the following guess:
1) Greg self-identifies as Durkon on his worst day.
2) Durkon on his worst day wouldn't take any action that would predictably result in his mother and her friends dying without honor and going to Hel.
3) Greg's entire set of actions since his creation have been aimed at a goal of having Sigdi and her friends and all the other dwarves die without honor.

Greg will realize that his actions contradict his self-image, and that there is a way to preserve both his self-image and the plan.

He rushes out of the Hall, probably taking the other vampires with him, to go to the dinner party and kill everyone there in battle.

The dinner party isn't going to break in on Greg, they don't meet in this hall. The dinner party isn't going to beat Greg in a fight, that would be the worst sort of deus ex machina. Greg is going to leave the hall because he needs to kill the dinner party before the Ex-exarch can dominate the council.

What happens next is in the air, but I offer this as the reason Greg doesn't just finish off the order, because he NEEDS to stop Sigdi and company from dying without honor, and being Evil and committed to the plan, he'll take the easy way of "kill them all" as his first plan for how to do so.

Actually I like it. Maybe he'll start a big killing spree to save some dwarves.... Eventually bringing death and destruction upon them.

[Fyraltari]

There's been a lot of foreshadowing about how Durkon is subtly influencing/persuading Greg to be Good, but I think it's a fake-out and that the PCs will be saved some other way (e.g. I quite like the other theory that Durkon's mother and her friends will burst in to the rescue).

My reasoning: every vampire has access to the entirety of its hosts memories (and in fact must (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1089.html) eventually review them all). If a vampire can be influenced in this way, why aren't all of them simply carbon copies of what they were in life (alignment and all)? Are we meant to think that Durkon's personal experiences (touching as they are) are so much more powerful than every other vampire victims' that he can overturn the convictions of a spirit of pure supernatural Evil.

Okay so I know that in D&D Evil is tangible. Is it the same as Negtive Energy? Because if it is not I don't see why a spirit of negative energy could not be good. In this vein I think that all vampires are created evil because their very first experience of the world was when their hosts was at their lowest, vilest and most desperate. NOt much chance to get a bright, trustful and optimistic outlook from that.

Next, vampires are pretty rare in-universe, so much so that most people don't even know there are two beings inside each.

So in order for a vampire to turn good, they would need a host that can show them something moving enough to surpass that original trauma and survive long enough in a world where most people wants to kill them on sight (and overcome the natural desire to snap back at this aggression) to undertake the long and harduous journey of redemption.

Fianlly, I am not, in fact I don't think anyone is, theorizing that Durkula will turn Good from that memory alone and start ahving tea parties with bunnies, only less Evil, not Evil enough to want the world destroyed anymore (if only because it has Sigdi in it). As Roy said most evil people don't want the world destroyed.

Greg could become better (as in closer to Good) while still being worse than what Belkar is right now (probably not worse than he was at the beginning though).

[Kish]

Okay so I know that in D&D Evil is tangible. Is it the same as Negtive Energy?
Nowhere near. Fiends or celestials will wither and die on the Negative Energy Plane, or explode on the Positive Energy Plane, just like humans.

[oonker]

I don't like to theorize for future events, because I'm usually wrong, but...

I think this memory show Greg that being a Dwarf is about doing your duty, even if it makes you miserable. Sigdi abandoned every comfort, every money, every retribution to save the lives of 5 total strangers because it was the right thing to do.

Greg's right thing to do is to follow the plan, and here's he risking everything to satisfy his personal need of being the one to defeat Roy and the OotS. He likes to brag, to gloat, to be the center of attention (even putting a "throne" in the big battle). And he almost lost it all. Had the battle gone a little differently, the OotS would have won. If only they had a contingency for the mass dispelling, they'd probably have won. Ponchula even mentions that they're low on spellcasting (the only magic that they cast are the defensive buffs and symbol traps, one Blindness, one Sound Lance, one mass inflict moderate wounds and one inflict serious wonds, IIRC).

I think he will come to terms that the best course of action now is to go to the ex-Exarch and help him sway the council votes. Now. Imediately. That's his duty is to his goddess, not to his personal satisfaction of crushing Roy and the rest of the Order that took him for granted, and leave the OotS there: alive, but defeated. OotS will recover somehow, maybe Scruffy will get the potion to Belkar somehow, I don't know.

But yeah, that's my (probably wrong) theory.

[Fyraltari]

I don't like to theorize for future events, because I'm usually wrong, but...

I think this memory show Greg that being a Dwarf is about doing your duty, even if it makes you miserable. Sigdi abandoned every comfort, every money, every retribution to save the lives of 5 total strangers because it was the right thing to do.

Greg's right thing to do is to follow the plan, and here's he risking everything to satisfy his personal need of being the one to defeat Roy and the OotS. He likes to brag, to gloat, to be the center of attention (even putting a "throne" in the big battle). And he almost lost it all. Had the battle gone a little differently, the OotS would have won. If only they had a contingency for the mass dispelling, they'd probably have won. Ponchula even mentions that they're low on spellcasting (the only magic that they cast are the defensive buffs and symbol traps, one Blindness, one Sound Lance, one mass inflict moderate wounds and one inflict serious wonds, IIRC).

I think he will come to terms that the best course of action now is to go to the ex-Exarch and help him sway the council votes. Now. Imediately. That's his duty is to his goddess, not to his personal satisfaction of crushing Roy and the rest of the Order that took him for granted, and leave the OotS there: alive, but defeated. OotS will recover somehow, maybe Scruffy will get the potion to Belkar somehow, I don't know.

But yeah, that's my (probably wrong) theory.

If that was Durkon's plan... Why ? If he thinks the Order can take out all of the horse at once why on earth would he incite them to regroup when they have been Nice enough to halve their forces for easier picking?

[Derian]

I don't think it's an intentional fakeout on Greg's part; the memory obviously has him utterly baffled and shaken.

Best guess I've got: Roy's just faking the unconsciousness; he didn't take nonlethal damage like Haley, Belkar, and Durkon did and his sword visibly healed him more than a few times, and he's not got visible injuries like a fighter knocked down to negatives should have. So he's laying in wait for a chance. That or Belkar's gonna get potion'd by Mr. Scruffy and overcome the domination when he's being forced to attack his own animal companion.

Whatever the case, Ponchella is distracted with blood-slurping at the moment, out of the antilife shell, and on her own. Perfect chance to get staked by Belkar or skewered by Roy, and as distracted as Greg is, he's not going to be able to react fast enough to save her. So either she gets dusted or seriously damaged. This shakes Greg out of his reverie and he gets seriously cheesed off at Durkon for distracting him, but the experience still leaves him shaken and on tilt for the rest of the book.

[The Pilgrim]

The thing with Greg is that he strikes me as the kind of villiain that actually cares about keeping face. About justifying his actions. Xykon is all into evil for the lulz of it. Bozzok is okay admiting he does everything for his own benefit. For Hel, she is the center of the Universe and nothing else matters. But Greg is more like Redcloak, Tarquin, or Malack, in that he needs to justify his injustificable evil actions.

Redcloack has his Grand Plan, Tarquin has his Grand Rules of Narrative, and Malack has his Humble Service to his God, and spared the Order after killing Durkon not for any promise or sense of loyalty to Durkon but so he could think about himself as being reasonable noble and civilized and above petty villians. Xykon would laught and scorn them all, like he actually did to Redcloak in Start of Darkness.

We have seen plenty of that bull**** in-comic in Greg's dialogues with Durkon and Roy. He puts great efforts to justify his position. They are petty, childish self-justifications, but that's not because he doesn't put effort in it, but because he is just a newborn, he still lacks the mileage. On an emotional level, he is more like Nale, Tsukiko or Hilgya, who seem more like teenagers with issues when compared with the big villiains of this comic.

Durkon, with that last memory, has basically shattered all of Greg's stance. All his "dwarves are mean and deserve what we are going to do to them" and the "you Durkon are an idiot for having lived the life you have lived". And Greg must feel compeled to refute Durkon and reafirm himself. Because Greg is, after all, a child. Which will lead Greg to... make mistakes for distracting his attention from what actually matters.

That's my bet on what it is going to happen. It doesn't matters if Greg accepts or rejects Durkon's epiphany. The point is that he is going to allow himself to get distracted by it.

[brian 333]

The thing with Greg is that he strikes me as the kind of villiain that actually cares about keeping face. About justifying his actions. Xykon is all into evil for the lulz of it. Bozzok is okay admiting he does everything for his own benefit. For Hel, she is the center of the Universe and nothing else matters. But Greg is more like Redcloak, Tarquin, or Malack, in that he needs to justify his injustificable evil actions.

Redcloack has his Grand Plan, Tarquin has his Grand Rules of Narrative, and Malack has his Humble Service to his God, and spared the Order after killing Durkon not for any promise or sense of loyalty to Durkon but so he could think about himself as being reasonable noble and civilized and above petty villians. Xykon would laught and scorn them all, like he actually did to Redcloak in Start of Darkness.

We have seen plenty of that bull**** in-comic in Greg's dialogues with Durkon and Roy. He puts great efforts to justify his position. They are petty, childish self-justifications, but that's not because he doesn't put effort in it, but because he is just a newborn, he still lacks the mileage. On an emotional level, he is more like Nale, Tsukiko or Hilgya, who seem more like teenagers with issues when compared with the big villiains of this comic.

Durkon, with that last memory, has basically shattered all of Greg's stance. All his "dwarves are mean and deserve what we are going to do to them" and the "you Durkon are an idiot for having lived the life you have lived". And Greg must feel compeled to refute Durkon and reafirm himself. Because Greg is, after all, a child. Which will lead Greg to... make mistakes for distracting his attention from what actually matters.

That's my bet on what it is going to happen. It doesn't matters if Greg accepts or rejects Durkon's epiphany. The point is that he is going to allow himself to get distracted by it.

My guess is that Durkula has already fallen for Durkon's trap by leaving the temple and coming to the feast hall.

How many temples have your characters raided? Were any of them Treasure Type Zero? Temples usually have magic items, holy water, and lots of other stuff in them. The Dwarves of the Dinner Party have free access to gear up before they come for Durkula, backed by every dwarf in Firmament with ldvels in a PC class.

Durkula does not expect them to do this because as we have repeatedly been shown, Durkula does not understand the concept of fighting a battle you know you can't win. He doesn't understand Durkon, he doesn't understand Sigdi, and he doesn't understand dwarves.

[KorvinStarmast]

His new little family is Hilgya and Kudzu, he'd be killing the old family. Being Lawful Evil is all about precise wording. Fair point.

[Mike Havran]

Durkon is a hero, and heroes overcome adversity by their own actions, just like Haley turned Crystal against Bozzok or Elan persuaded Julio to aid the Order against Tarquin despite unwholesome narrative expectations of such move. So I believe this arc will be about Durkon overcoming the adversity of Durkula, rather than about Durkula overcoming the adversity of the epiphany, or about Roy/Belkar/Scruffy/whomever just saving the day by some combat tactic unrelated to Durkon. I don't think Sdigji's family will save the day either; if Durkon navigated Durkula to the hall precisely so that they encounter the vampire squad, he must have assumed the family will be powerful enough to prevail against Durkula; and presence of such powerful cavalry would make the Order redundant (and a bad story).

So I believe Durkula will eventually reach some sort of (il)logical collapse; my very wild guess is this:

Hel only gets souls of dwarves that died without honor, right? And Durkula's sole purpose is to serve her goals (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0946.html), right? But what is more honorable for a cleric than living your god's truth (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1113.html), right? Dishonorable death, as per self-destruction, is the only way Durkon can get back to his Lady. Sure, she will make his (after)life miserable, but isn't being miserable what the unlife of an antithesis of a dwarf is all about?


What about the fact that Durkula is beginning to talk like Durkon? Seems like something important. Where? I can see no trace of Durkon's accent anywhere.

[brian 333]

Durkon is a hero, and heroes overcome adversity by their own actions, just like Haley turned Crystal against Bozzok or Elan persuaded Julio to aid the Order against Tarquin despite unwholesome narrative expectations of such move. So I believe this arc will be about Durkon overcoming the adversity of Durkula, rather than about Durkula overcoming the adversity of the epiphany, or about Roy/Belkar/Scruffy/whomever just saving the day by some combat tactic unrelated to Durkon. I don't think Sdigji's family will save the day either; if Durkon navigated Durkula to the hall precisely so that they encounter the vampire squad, he must have assumed the family will be powerful enough to prevail against Durkula; and presence of such powerful cavalry would make the Order redundant (and a bad story).

So I believe Durkula will eventually reach some sort of (il)logical collapse; my very wild guess is this:

Hel only gets souls of dwarves that died without honor, right? And Durkula's sole purpose is to serve her goals (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0946.html), right? But what is more honorable for a cleric than living your god's truth (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1113.html), right? Dishonorable death, as per self-destruction, is the only way Durkon can get back to his Lady. Sure, she will make his (after)life miserable, but isn't being miserable what the unlife of an antithesis of a dwarf is all about?

Where? I can see no trace of Durkon's accent anywhere.

What if Durkon's greatest strength is not his combat ability but his ability to inspire others? In this case he will have won if his family comes to the rescue as surely as Alexander won in his fight against Egypt.

Haley didn't defeat Crystal with her bow and her sneak attack, she used her best weapon: her brain.

Elan didn't defeat Tarquin with his Chaos Saber and a quip, he used his best weapon: his charm.

Durkon has demonstrated time and again that he is a support character. That's not a bad thing, that's a character fulfilling his role in the party. If Durkon wins by giving other dwarves a chance to die with honor while buying time for the OotS to get back on their feet, he will have won using his greatest strength, just like Haley and Elan.

This is, of course, not the only way he can win. It's how he can win even if he doesn't convince Durkula of the error of his ways.

[ThePhantasm]

Durkula does not 'control' Durkon. He is not possessing him.

He does control and possess Durkon's body, in which Durkon's soul is currently imprisoned. I never claimed he was controlling or possessing his soul.

[Rrmcklin]

There's been a lot of foreshadowing about how Durkon is subtly influencing/persuading Greg to be Good, but I think it's a fake-out and that the PCs will be saved some other way (e.g. I quite like the other theory that Durkon's mother and her friends will burst in to the rescue).

My reasoning: every vampire has access to the entirety of its hosts memories (and in fact must (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1089.html) eventually review them all). If a vampire can be influenced in this way, why aren't all of them simply carbon copies of what they were in life (alignment and all)? Are we meant to think that Durkon's personal experiences (touching as they are) are so much more powerful than every other vampire victims' that he can overturn the convictions of a spirit of pure supernatural Evil?

Plus, it'll make Hel look pretty stupid if her custom-made undead champion is so easily swayed.

I think it's much more likely that Greg will take a moment of contemplation, then burst out laughing at Durkon and scoff at his naiveté and his mother's foolish charity. Right before he gets staked, hopefully :)

Well, I disagree with the premise that subtly influencing/persuading Greg to be good as been Durkon's intend this entire time, so on that front, I doubt it'll happen, because if that was the purpose it's been poorly executed.

[Gift Jeraff]

I would also be in the "Evil Durkon won't have an epiphany" camp if it weren't for this line:
https://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/Wrecan_zpsxxbwxuey.png "That doesn't mean he won't turn on you when you least expect it, then ask for forgiveness later." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0986.html)

Rich loves the whole thing where a silly throwaway line ends up being major foreshadowing.

[oonker]

If that was Durkon's plan... Why ? If he thinks the Order can take out all of the horse at once why on earth would he incite them to regroup when they have been Nice enough to halve their forces for easier picking?

It makes sense if Durkon did not expect the Order to win. It would buy them a second chance.

But, as I've said previously, I don't usually make predictions, I suck at them.

[Kish]

I get what "horse" is a typo for, from context.

I'm just really not seeing how you managed to get from "vampires" to "horse."

[Sky_Schemer]

I posted over here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?564746-Durkon-s-plan#3) that it's not Durkon's epiphany that matters. What I believe is happening is Durkula is having an epiphany: he's just discovered that his plan won't work. The collective Dwarven understanding of the consequences of a dishonorable death is far too great for even the Domination effect when applied at this scale. If being forced to make a decision that knowingly condemns 10 million dwarves to Hel doesn't qualify as "against their nature", then I don't know what does.

Worse for Durkula, he doesn't have time for a new plan.

[martianmister]

Where? I can see no trace of Durkon's accent anywhere.

"Why would someone give up living like a princess to raise five total strangers from tha dead?" from panel two (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1129.html).

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I posted over here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?564746-Durkon-s-plan#3) that it's not Durkon's epiphany that matters. What I believe is happening is Durkula is having an epiphany: he's just discovered that his plan won't work. The collective Dwarven understanding of the consequences of a dishonorable death is far too great for even the Domination effect when applied at this scale. If being forced to make a decision that knowingly condemns 10 million dwarves to Hel doesn't qualify as "against their nature", then I don't know what does.

Worse for Durkula, he doesn't have time for a new plan.

Irrelevant. They won’t be ordered to condemn dwarves to anything. They will be ordered to vote No, which is not against their nature. The subjects of domination don’t get to add context to the order, or else the entire team would have had retries after every order to attack Roy, since they’d know full well that if Roy went down, they’d soon be Vampire drink holders.

GW

[Sky_Schemer]

Irrelevant. They won’t be ordered to condemn dwarves to anything. They will be ordered to vote No, which is not against their nature. The subjects of domination don’t get to add context to the order, or else the entire team would have had retries after every order to attack Roy, since they’d know full well that if Roy went down, they’d soon be Vampire drink holders.

"Against your nature" is all about context, and there's nothing in the spell description that says characters are forced to ignore it. The rules are silent on the specifics, which means it's open to interpretation.

Rich seems to be taking the approach of "Can the characters find reasonable, internal justifications for the commands being forced on them?" Belkar was interpreting his control as protecting V (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1123.html). Elan (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1124.html) and Haley (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1123.html) were protecting Durkon, not Durkula, though Elan had his usual comedic flair which may or may not be "rule of funny". Hilgya had no ties to the Order, and as a cleric of Loki no real ties or concerns for followers of Thor, either (not to mention a personal belief that she has a loophole).

But ordering an elder dwarf to make a decision that will knowingly lead to the condemnation of millions of dwarves? This scene with Sigdi suggests that's a bridge too far.

It also doesn't matter if it's true or not. What matters is whether or not Durkula believes it, and ends up second-guessing his plan.

[rferries]

"Against your nature" is all about context, and there's nothing in the spell description that says characters are forced to ignore it. The rules are silent on the specifics, which means it's open to interpretation.

Rich seems to be taking the approach of "Can the characters find reasonable, internal justifications for the commands being forced on them?" Belkar was interpreting his control as protecting V (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1123.html). Elan (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1124.html) and Haley (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1123.html) were protecting Durkon, not Durkula, though Elan had his usual comedic flair which may or may not be "rule of funny". Hilgya had no ties to the Order, and as a cleric of Loki no real ties or concerns for followers of Thor, either (not to mention a personal belief that she has a loophole).

But ordering an elder dwarf to make a decision that will knowingly lead to the condemnation of millions of dwarves? This scene with Sigdi suggests that's a bridge too far.

It also doesn't matter if it's true or not. What matters is whether or not Durkula believes it, and ends up second-guessing his plan.

Haha there was a debate about this in the Class & Level Geekery thread. In this instance I'd rule that the elders might get an extra save (per the dominate person description), but they wouldn't necessarily break the domination automatically, as the vote isn't an obviously self-destructive order (the result still has to go back to the Godsmoot, etc.).

[brian 333]

"Against your nature" is all about context, and there's nothing in the spell description that says characters are forced to ignore it. The rules are silent on the specifics, which means it's open to interpretation.

Rich seems to be taking the approach of "Can the characters find reasonable, internal justifications for the commands being forced on them?" Belkar was interpreting his control as protecting V (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1123.html). Elan (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1124.html) and Haley (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1123.html) were protecting Durkon, not Durkula, though Elan had his usual comedic flair which may or may not be "rule of funny". Hilgya had no ties to the Order, and as a cleric of Loki no real ties or concerns for followers of Thor, either (not to mention a personal belief that she has a loophole).

But ordering an elder dwarf to make a decision that will knowingly lead to the condemnation of millions of dwarves? This scene with Sigdi suggests that's a bridge too far.

It also doesn't matter if it's true or not. What matters is whether or not Durkula believes it, and ends up second-guessing his plan.

As a player I have used this argument. I even used it to justify my wizard character not casting a spell but arguing with the party instead. It bought my team one round.

(The first command was "attack the party," the second was "cast a fireball on them.")

Obvious self harm is the clause you want, because it is not against a council member's nature to vote no. How will a no vote result in obvious self harm?

Remember that a dominated victim cannot invoke knowledge of what others will or might do as a result. For example, knowing the gods will remake the world if you vote no is an extrapolation of future events caused by others. Simply voting no has no direct immediate self-harmful consequences.

[Vingelot]

Where? I can see no trace of Durkon's accent anywhere.

He once said "tha" in the second panel.


Durkula does not expect them to do this because as we have repeatedly been shown, Durkula does not understand the concept of fighting a battle you know you can't win. He doesn't understand Durkon, he doesn't understand Sigdi, and he doesn't understand dwarves.

I like this. It seems very dwarfish.


I get what "horse" is a typo for, from context.

I'm just really not seeing how you managed to get from "vampires" to "horse."

lol I hadn't even noticed that. Now I'm wondering too!


I posted over here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?564746-Durkon-s-plan#3) that it's not Durkon's epiphany that matters. What I believe is happening is Durkula is having an epiphany: he's just discovered that his plan won't work. The collective Dwarven understanding of the consequences of a dishonorable death is far too great for even the Domination effect when applied at this scale. If being forced to make a decision that knowingly condemns 10 million dwarves to Hel doesn't qualify as "against their nature", then I don't know what does.

Worse for Durkula, he doesn't have time for a new plan.

Unlikely.

[Sky_Schemer]

Remember that a dominated victim cannot invoke knowledge of what others will or might do as a result.

People keep asserting this. Where is this written?

[The Pilgrim]

I'd say that the real flaw on Hel's plan is the fact that Dvalin can easily call foul and invalidate the Council's vote if he finds out the voting has been rigged. However that would be bad storytelling, it's the heroes who must solve the situations, not a literal deux-ex-machina. And The Giant is not a bad storyteller, so I do not think this is were the story is going. In a pinch, if cornered, Mr Burlew could pull it and get away with it thanks to his great writer's skills and the comical nature of the story he is telling. But at this point of the comic he has had plenty of time to plan the plot well ahead of time and it is doubtful that he would find himself caught in such a big a creativity block.

In my humble oppinion, Hel is a well seasoned deity and knows very well the limits of vampiric domination. So I do not think her plan could be derrailed for making such a gross miscalculation on dwarven nature such as "you cannot force a dominated dwarven elder to vote yes to the destruction of the world". From a mechanical point of view I believe her plan is fully functional and it will be derrailed due to other factors, mostly related to overplaying her hand, underestimating the mortals' capacity to twart her plans, and being incapable of foreshadowing the things people inspired by Good are capable of achieving.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

"Against your nature" is all about context, and there's nothing in the spell description that says characters are forced to ignore it. The rules are silent on the specifics, which means it's open to interpretation.

Rich seems to be taking the approach of "Can the characters find reasonable, internal justifications for the commands being forced on them?" Belkar was interpreting his control as protecting V (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1123.html). Elan (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1124.html) and Haley (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1123.html) were protecting Durkon, not Durkula, though Elan had his usual comedic flair which may or may not be "rule of funny". Hilgya had no ties to the Order, and as a cleric of Loki no real ties or concerns for followers of Thor, either (not to mention a personal belief that she has a loophole).

The kobold walked up a set of stairs he knew to be trapped till he died of said traps because he was told to walk up the stairs and trigger the traps. Compared to that, “vote yes on whatever the god asks” is completely valid as an order. The dwarves won’t even have a context until long after the order has been given.

GW

[Mike Havran]

What if Durkon's greatest strength is not his combat ability but his ability to inspire others? In this case he will have won if his family comes to the rescue as surely as Alexander won in his fight against Egypt.

Haley didn't defeat Crystal with her bow and her sneak attack, she used her best weapon: her brain.

Elan didn't defeat Tarquin with his Chaos Saber and a quip, he used his best weapon: his charm.

Durkon has demonstrated time and again that he is a support character. That's not a bad thing, that's a character fulfilling his role in the party. If Durkon wins by giving other dwarves a chance to die with honor while buying time for the OotS to get back on their feet, he will have won using his greatest strength, just like Haley and Elan.

This is, of course, not the only way he can win. It's how he can win even if he doesn't convince Durkula of the error of his ways.I don't believe Durkon deliberately set up a fight between his old family and Durkula and his vampires. He would do it only if he was 100% sure his mother and friends could prevail, but that is clearly impossible, Durkon was away from them for ages, and when he was sent on his mission, not even the high priest of Thor was as powerful as Durkula is now. I should add that in case Sdigji and others were defeated, they would not just die with honor, Durkula would turn them into vampires and imprison their souls indefinitely. I don't really think Durkon would even think about putting his Ma in such risk.

[The Pilgrim]

The kobold did not die because of the traps. He was killed a while later when the Linear Guild came down carpet bombing the OOTS with acid spheres.

[Snails]

I'd say that the real flaw on Hel's plan is the fact that Dvalin can easily call foul and invalidate the Council's vote if he finds out the voting has been rigged. However that would be bad storytelling, it's the heroes who must solve the situations, not a literal deux-ex-machina.

Yeah, I agree. Dvalin "swore an oath to obey the will of the Council" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1016.html). Someone who has a brain bigger than a pea can see that a bunch of magically Dominated kings may not be expressing "the will of the Council" with their votes, regardless of what someone scribbles down in the official meeting minutes.

But we are not going to end up testing this theory because the heroes will prevail...somehow.

[Sloanzilla]

Make it a vampire unicorn and you have got marketing potential.

[brian 333]

People keep asserting this. Where is this written?

Forty years of errata and DM rulings.

It was pointed out earlier that Thann was able to break domination by being ordered to attack a simulated Shojo, but Thann is a paladin and murdering his liege would render him no longer a paladin. Destroying his own character class is obviously and immediately self harm by his own act. It is not against his nature to attack with a sword, but it is self harm to act in a way which destroys his character class.

Ordering Haley to attack Roy is not self-harm because it will have no impact on her character sheet. Ordering Thann to kill Shojo, or any innocent person, would alter Thann's character sheet in a very negative fashion.

I believe it was Kish who said that any interpretation which results in multiple saves would negate a spell which was designed to do exactly what the vampires are doing, and thus must be an incorrect interpretation.

[oonker]

The kobold did not die because of the traps. He was killed a while later when the Linear Guild came down carpet bombing the OOTS with acid spheres.

The Dominate spells can literally make you eat crap and it not be against your nature.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0835.html

[hroþila]

The Dominate spells can literally make you eat crap and it not be against your nature.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0835.html
Maybe. Maybe those "silent screams", like his "struggles" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0800.html) against V's mental commands to shoot Z, are pretty much inherent to domination because there's always some part of the mind that is futilely trying to resist regardless of the commands given (which would fit with Ponchette's comment about Belkar "barely needing a push" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1123.html), which implies that varying levels of resistance [perhaps comparable to that of Durkon vs his vampire, and just as futile] can be expected). But maybe those "silent screams" do mean he got a new save and simply failed it.

I'm leaning towards the former personally, but the latter also fits. And at any rate, not all these examples need to be the same.

[rferries]

There are 2 main limitations of domination:

1) "Obviously self destructive acts" are never carried out. This is generally interpreted as "you can order someone to fight their friends (risky but they might survive), but not to jump in a pool of lava". Note that such an order doesn't break the effect, it's simply ignored.

2) "Acts against one's nature" sometimes allow an additional chance to break the effect (e.g. the paladin who was presented with the ersatz Shojo). This is reserved for special cases (note the paladin had to obey the order to fight Haley et al, Shojo was one of the few people who could grant him an extra save). If the dominated creature fails to resist this order, they have to perform the act and the domination stays in place.

[Sky_Schemer]

Forty years of errata and DM rulings.

It was pointed out earlier that Thann was able to break domination by being ordered to attack a simulated Shojo, but Thann is a paladin and murdering his liege would render him no longer a paladin.

So, house rules, then. Got it.

I'd say knowing the fate of 10 million Dwarven souls might rate a bit higher than "no longer being a paladin", but YMMV.

[Sir_Norbert]

I posted over here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?564746-Durkon-s-plan#3) that it's not Durkon's epiphany that matters. What I believe is happening is Durkula is having an epiphany: he's just discovered that his plan won't work. The collective Dwarven understanding of the consequences of a dishonorable death is far too great for even the Domination effect when applied at this scale. If being forced to make a decision that knowingly condemns 10 million dwarves to Hel doesn't qualify as "against their nature", then I don't know what does.

Worse for Durkula, he doesn't have time for a new plan.

I'm going to chime and and say, for what it's worth, I like this idea. It has points against it, but so do the other suggestions proposed so far.

[brian 333]

So, house rules, then. Got it.

I'd say knowing the fate of 10 million Dwarven souls might rate a bit higher than "no longer being a paladin", but YMMV.

Not house rules.

What is a person's nature? Not his values, those are learned, not natural. Not his principles, those are taught, not innate. Nature is what you have from birth. The word has an actual meaning.

If I could claim values as my character's nature, the Dominate spell would be useless because every time my character was ordered around by a vampire it would violate his values.

The spell is fairly clear on what prompts a new save, and it's not simply something my characters hate doing. The threshold for a new save is much higher.

[Sky_Schemer]

Not house rules.

If it isn't in the rules, the errata or the FAQ then it's not RAW. Anything other than RAW is a house rule. If it is written somewhere that I missed, please post a link to it.


What is a person's nature? Not his values, those are learned, not natural.

Merriam-Webster disagrees with you on this. Your interpretation of nature is a dictionary definition and, as it happens, only one of several meanings for the term (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nature). So, no, your interpretation is incomplete which also makes it incorrect. And it has been refuted in the comic itself (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0524.html), which means it also has no bearing in this discussion. Thanh was not born a Paladin: he chose to become one.

[Fish]

Not house rules.

What is a person's nature? Not his values, those are learned, not natural. Not his principles, those are taught, not innate. Nature is what you have from birth. The word has an actual meaning.
The word "nature" has several meanings. You have chosen the meaning where "nature" opposes "nurture," a philosophy that all of a creature's abilities are either inborn (nature) or environmental (nurture). However, your interpretation leads to a position that domination can never be resisted by anybody except in cases of a) self-harm and b) things that are physically impossible for the creature to do, which is a meaningless exception — like a stop sign that only applies to people who are traveling at super-light speeds. I do not see this reading supported in the text, and if I were the DM, I would not read it in this fashion.

"Creatures will resist this control," the spell says. "Creatures cannot resist this control at all, except in cases of self-harm, or where they couldn't perform the order anyway," says Brian. One of these is not right.

[jwhouk]

I do agree with the bottom line about "going against nature" - but we also have to use relative class levels here. And it's also possible that some of the council members aren't too keen on their fellow dwarves - or they think the whole "Hel gets the accidental deaths" scenario is crappy.

Either way, DurkonCherryCola now has no plan. And Durkon can just sit there in his bounds and stick out his tongue.

[Kish]

I do agree with the bottom line about "going against nature" -

You agree with whom about what they said "going against nature" means? You do actually need to spell out what you're saying, not just assume everyone's on the same page.


Either way, DurkonCherryCola now has no plan. And Durkon can just sit there in his bounds and stick out his tongue.
Ah. I gather from that that you mean you think the vision Durkon just finished showing Greg demonstrated that the council can't be dominated into telling Dvalin to vote Yes.

[jwhouk]

Basically, yeah. Agreeing to destroy the universe and give your eternal soul to Hel is probably against the nature of every dwarf in the council.

[The Pilgrim]

Basically, yeah. Agreeing to destroy the universe and give your eternal soul to Hel is probably against the nature of every dwarf in the council.

Saying "yes" in a loud voice, however, is not.

[rferries]

Basically, yeah. Agreeing to destroy the universe and give your eternal soul to Hel is probably against the nature of every dwarf in the council.


Saying "yes" in a loud voice, however, is not.

In any event it probably doesn't matter - acts against one's nature only grant an additional save, they don't automatically end the domination. So long as a majority of them fail this extra save the vote will still work according to Hel's plan.

[martianmister]

Basically, yeah. Agreeing to destroy the universe and give your eternal soul to Hel is probably against the nature of every dwarf in the council.

Maybe their nature prefers to exist in Hel to the risking their souls' very existence?

[hroþila]

Maybe their nature prefers to exist in Hel to the risking their souls' very existence?
Not to mention everybody else's souls. Some dwarves strike me as the type to make that sacrifice happily.

[brian 333]

I may be at the extreme end of the scale on this. Personality traits may be considered a part of one's nature, but opening the door to allowing a save against every order given is the other extreme. I suspect the answer is somewhere in the middle. But my general premise is to set a high bar because Dominate is supposed to be something players fear.

[Doug Lampert]

I may be at the extreme end of the scale on this. Personality traits may be considered a part of one's nature, but opening the door to allowing a save against every order given is the other extreme. I suspect the answer is somewhere in the middle. But my general premise is to set a high bar because Dominate is supposed to be something players fear.

And "take a bath in that pool of totally not-acid" is an EXAMPLE of how you can use a weaker spell in the PHB. It has to be pretty blatantly self-destructive to be ignored, it has to be something you have a utter revulsion to the very idea of doing to be against your nature.

If there is a circumstance under which you will do X, then it is quite clear that X is not against your nature.

[Fish]

...because Dominate is supposed to be something players fear.
No, vampires are supposed to be something players fear. Domination is supposed to be something players can’t abuse. As a long-time DM, I know that I can’t set the precedent for the text of a spell to be interpreted so the spell becomes unbreakable and all-powerful when NPCs use it, because that makes players want it for themselves. And it is available to players, so you have to strike a balance between using it against players, and having players wreck your carefully-crafted scenarios with it.

Vampires can dominate at will, unlimited uses. That’s why they’re scary. If domination could never be broken, you wouldn’t need that unlimited usage thing; they’d only need one, because it would never break.

[brian 333]

No, vampires are supposed to be something players fear. Domination is supposed to be something players can’t abuse. []bAs a long-time DM, I know that I can’t set the precedent for the text of a spell to be interpreted so the spell becomes unbreakable and all-powerful when NPCs use it,[/b] because that makes players want it for themselves. And it is available to players, so you have to strike a balance between using it against players, and having players wreck your carefully-crafted scenarios with it.

Vampires can dominate at will, unlimited uses. That’s why they’re scary. If domination could never be broken, you wouldn’t need that unlimited usage thing; they’d only need one, because it would never break.

I want to address the bolded part:

This us not a thing I've ever asserted or supported. It is not at all my argument.

When cast, Dominate offers a save. The vampire Supernatural Ability is treated as Caster Level 12. For characters of a level appropriate for vampire hunting this isn't too hard to beat, on average. My argument is that once this initial save fails, the character may resist all she likes, but only gains additional saves in extreme cases.

The spell is designed to make characters do what they don't want to do, so not wanting to do something is not grounds for a new save. The threshold which allows a new save must be very high or it renders the spell pointless.



If it isn't in the rules, the errata or the FAQ then it's not RAW. Anything other than RAW is a house rule. If it is written somewhere that I missed, please post a link to it.

The second sentence (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dominatePerson.htm) of the spell's description pretty much covers it.

[Fish]

The spell is designed to make characters do what they don't want to do, so not wanting to do something is not grounds for a new save.
I agree with this. Simply not wanting to is not enough.


The threshold which allows a new save must be very high or it renders the spell pointless.
You have not set the threshold high at all. Instead, you have drawn a saving-throw exclusion zone around all commands that are likely to be used and saying "no saving throw at all." Since you have defined "in the character's nature" as a skill, instinct or ability that you are naturally born with, this basically allows humanoid characters to have a saving throw only with regard to what a newborn baby can do. Because everything else humans do is learned.

Speech is cultural; speaking a language and understanding it are both learned. No saving throw for any command involving speech.

In fact, all cultural awareness (like the appropriateness of nudity, awareness of legality, and ethics) are learned. So no saving throw requiring knowledge of human society.

Like kissing — since you mentioned "Haley kissing a cute boy." Kissing is cultural; it is not something we are born with. (Since you mentioned "kissing a cute boy" with respect to Haley.) No saving throw.

Interacting with any human invention — doors, windows, wells, wagons — is learned. In fact, interacting with natural things (like trees and fire) is also learned. No saving throw for any command asking you to do something with something.

Fighting is learned. So is defending yourself. No saving throw.

Magic is learned. No saving throw for commands to cast spells.

Motor control is not present at birth. A baby can barely grip his mother's finger. No saving throw against doing anything that requires voluntary movement of muscles.

Maternal instinct is not present in newborns. No saving throw with respect to not harming children.

Sexual desire is acquired years after the moment of birth. No saving throw with respect to sex.

Danger is also learned. Newborns have no idea what danger even is. No saving throw that requires the creature to understand what is dangerous.

What have we got left? What remains? Clearly, the player gets additional saving throws because the manual says so:

Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus.
(My emphasis.)

See? There's a saving throw in the spell description, which you claim only applies to things we are born knowing how to do — which would basically consist of any command to eat, sleep, cry, barf and poop. You have taken the text of the spell that grants saving throws and defined that part of it away.

I don't see any purpose in engaging you further on this. Your extreme views on interpreting this spell fail to provide any useful insight on how Rich intends to portray this ability. Your defense of this position makes you an outlying data point.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I wouldn’t use the term “reject”, but I also don’t think the High Priest of Hel is going to abruptly switch to Good thanks to this revelation. I do however think that there will be some change or shock to his thinking that leads to giving mercy to the Order.

[ziratha]

I have a thought. Is it possible that the answer has nothing to do with durkon or durkula's current revelations? One of the things we saw earlier was Hel bemoaning that, after making the deal, that thor told the dwarves about it. Mightn't this also be the solution of this scenario? I think roy even said that if they warned them, the dwarves could break out into a quick civil war to avoid hel. I feel like this is the only way that hel can be defeated AND the prophecy about durkon's return be true. I'm sure I'm wrong somehow, does a more avid reader care to point out how?

[MesiDoomstalker]

I have a thought. Is it possible that the answer has nothing to do with durkon or durkula's current revelations? One of the things we saw earlier was Hel bemoaning that, after making the deal, that thor told the dwarves about it. Mightn't this also be the solution of this scenario? I think roy even said that if they warned them, the dwarves could break out into a quick civil war to avoid hel. I feel like this is the only way that hel can be defeated AND the prophecy about durkon's return be true. I'm sure I'm wrong somehow, does a more avid reader care to point out how?

If Hel's plan succeeds and the vote to end the world goes through, the gap of time between the vote and the remaking will be... short to say the least. The logistics of starting and executing a genocidal civil war for a race of beings in a few hours is challenging to say the least.

[Sky_Schemer]

The second sentence (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dominatePerson.htm) of the spell's description pretty much covers it.

Not even close. It is so not close it is practically a non sequitur.

We're done here.

[WindStruck]

I would also be in the "Evil Durkon won't have an epiphany" camp if it weren't for this line:
https://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/Wrecan_zpsxxbwxuey.png "That doesn't mean he won't turn on you when you least expect it, then ask for forgiveness later." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0986.html)

Rich loves the whole thing where a silly throwaway line ends up being major foreshadowing.

Now this is a good one!

But will Durkon do a 180 or simply go "Forgive me Roy..." as he prepares to murder him? (Then it turns out Roy was playing dead the whole time. Surprise!)

[rferries]

Now this is a good one!

I would have seen that more as a reference to Greg betraying Roy at the Godsmoot, IMHO.

[rferries]

Not even close. It is so not close it is practically a non sequitur.

We're done here.

I still don't get your point. Even if you're correct and the vote would be against the nature of the dwarven elders, they're only entitled to an additional save (which they might easily fail, depending on the Exarch's gaze DC).

From the spell:


Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus. Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out. Once control is established, the range at which it can be exercised is unlimited, as long as you and the subject are on the same plane. You need not see the subject to control it.

[Sky_Schemer]

I still don't get your point. Even if you're correct and the vote would be against the nature of the dwarven elders, they're only entitled to an additional save (which they might easily fail, depending on the Exarch's gaze DC).


That isn't what we were talking about. People keep asserting that dominated characters don't get to consider the results or context of actions they are being forced to do. As this is an important aspect of whether or not an action ends up being against their nature, I asked for proof. So far no one has been able to point me at an official rule, FAQ or errata.

[brian 333]

That isn't what we were talking about. People keep asserting that dominated characters don't get to consider the results or context of actions they are being forced to do. As this is an important aspect of whether or not an action ends up being against their nature, I asked for proof. So far no one has been able to point me at an official rule, FAQ or errata.

The Suggestion spell demonstrates how much context is allowed in its Acid Bath analogy. How is it less than clear? The dominated character believes what it is told to believe. If he sees acid and his dominator says it's water, he believes it's water.

Haley even said it: "Durkon wouldn't lie to us." But Haley knows it's not Durkon, and she knows not-Durkon would lie. They caught him doing it. Apparently context means very little when compared with what the dominator says.

[rferries]

That isn't what we were talking about. People keep asserting that dominated characters don't get to consider the results or context of actions they are being forced to do. As this is an important aspect of whether or not an action ends up being against their nature, I asked for proof. So far no one has been able to point me at an official rule, FAQ or errata.

Really? I've skimmed the thread again but I didn't see anyone say that (though it's had many tangents so I could have overlooked something). It is self-evident that the subject is still conscious and aware, the spell doesn't specify that they become mindless.

Everyone needs a thesis statement haha.

[King of Nowhere]

Haley even said it: "Durkon wouldn't lie to us." But Haley knows it's not Durkon, and she knows not-Durkon would lie. They caught him doing it. Apparently context means very little when compared with what the dominator says.

I think that's just her self-rationalization because she failed the saving throw.

EDIT: also, durkon dumping all his memories into the vampire is a perfectly good explanation as for how somebody may have a sudden switch of alignment. the vampire is now a fairly different person.

[rferries]

Well, it's looking like I was wrong. I can't say I'm too happy about this development - raises a bunch of questions about the efficacy of vampirism and casts serious doubt on Hel's competence... but on the other hand it's not really a deus ex machina as there was tons of foreshadowing. Plus, OOTS continues to hit emotional high notes - I liked every facet of that panel where Durkon dumps all the memories at once.

Thanks for entertaining the debate, everyone!

[Grey_Wolf_c]

raises a bunch of questions about the efficacy of vampirism
... No, it really doesn't. You can't extrapolate anything from a single point of reference, not when the other major point of reference points in the exact opposite direction and when the narrative conceit is that this might be a one-in-a-million confluence of circumstances.


and casts serious doubt on Hel's competence...
Again no, it doesn't. Hel didn't have a choice. Suitable or not, Durkon's corpse was the only chance she had at putting her plan in motion. That Durkon turned out to be too good to become a vampire is not an indictment of her competence.

Grey Wolf

[Sky_Schemer]

Really? I've skimmed the thread again but I didn't see anyone say that (though it's had many tangents so I could have overlooked something).

Yup (only once in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23248020&postcount=50), but a couple of times in a related one).


It is self-evident that the subject is still conscious and aware, the spell doesn't specify that they become mindless.

And, yup.

[rferries]

... No, it really doesn't. You can't extrapolate anything from a single point of reference, not when the other major point of reference points in the exact opposite direction and when the narrative conceit is that this might be a one-in-a-million confluence of circumstances.

Ha! We agree then, it's a total plot device... basically uses the Monster Manual "'always X alignment' doesn't mean always X alignment" clause.

For me, the idea that someone as mentally superior (+4 Cha, +2 Int, +2 Wis) and inherently Evil (i.e. throwing-Roy's-dead-brother-in-his-face, killing-everyone-in-the-world, dooming-all-dwarves-to-eternal-Hel, ruling-over-a-new-world-of-undead Evil) as Greg could be swayed by any host's memories is writer fiat, plain and simple. He was designed to use Durkon's memories as tools stolen from someone else, not be affected by them himself.


Again no, it doesn't. Hel didn't have a choice. Suitable or not, Durkon's corpse was the only chance she had at putting her plan in motion. That Durkon turned out to be too good to become a vampire is not an indictment of her competence.

And she didn't think to warn Greg that this was a possibility - either when she was first crafting him or when they spoke later on? Or to craft a spirit that wasn't as soft-hearted as Greg in the first place?


Yup (only once in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23248020&postcount=50), but a couple of times in a related one).

Ah righto. For what it's worth I interpreted that more as Brian333 saying that the "obviously self-destructive orders are never carried out" clause wouldn't apply, although the "any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw" clause might.

[Kish]

I, meanwhile, am going, "Casts doubt on Hel's competence? You mean you didn't observe her Nale-level incompetence on display when she was screaming that it was unfair that her scheme to kill the Order right then failed because a virus didn't replicate as fast as she wanted it to?"

[rferries]

I, meanwhile, am going, "Casts doubt on Hel's competence? You mean you didn't observe her Nale-level incompetence on display when she was screaming that it was unfair that her scheme to kill the Order right then failed because a virus didn't replicate as fast as she wanted it to?"

Haha yeah. I generally say that joke comics aren't meant to impact a particular character's competence. Call it the Xykon Principle. :D

[Kish]

Ignoring the humor, the Hel I see is still someone with a history of making obvious mistakes because of assumptions she doesn't think through--going back to the bet which, in terms of in-world chronology, is the very earliest thing the audience was shown about her.

As I posted somewhere, she's a lot like a real-world narcissist: self-absorbed and devoid of empathy to the point where it seriously impacts her ability to understand anyone else.

[rferries]

Fair point! I give her credit for orchestrating the current plotline though, she certainly learned her lesson from the bet.

[Fyraltari]

All she had to do was keeping get cakehole shut at the Moot and the heroes would not be opposing ver at all. But no, she had to point out to everyone what they overlooked.

Also she completely misses the potshot Thrym takes at her.

(Can't link sorry)

So yes she isn't the cleverest villain the order ever faced but in her defense this is not some masterplan she had been plotting for centuries. This is something she put together at the last minute when fate suddenly gifted her a high-level Cleric just at the time the Moot was called. This is not the perfect servant but all the other agents she has on the Material Plane are germs so ...

[KorvinStarmast]

I wouldn’t use the term “reject”, but I also don’t think the High Priest of Hel is going to abruptly switch to Good thanks to this revelation. I do however think that there will be some change or shock to his thinking that leads to giving mercy to the Order. I don't think that we can call Durkula Hight Priest of Hel any more, since he passed that job along to another vampire (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1017.html)so that Hel would have presence at the moot while he went about completing the mission.


Ignoring the humor, the Hel I see is still someone with a history of making obvious mistakes because of assumptions she doesn't think through--going back to the bet which, in terms of in-world chronology, is the very earliest thing the audience was shown about her. As I posted somewhere, she's a lot like a real-world narcissist: self-absorbed and devoid of empathy to the point where it seriously impacts her ability to understand anyone else. Yeah, that's what her char dev, such as it is, indicates.


Also she completely misses the potshot Thrym takes at her.

(Can't link sorry)
Was it this one (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1082.html) or the one in the previous strip that you had in mind?


This is something she put together at the last minute when fate suddenly gifted her a high-level Cleric just at the time the Moot was called. This is not the perfect servant but all the other agents she has on the Material Plane are germs so ... You work with the tools that you have (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0022.html)... :roy:

[jwhouk]

I don't think that we can call Durkula Hight Priest of Hel any more, since he passed that job along to another vampire (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1017.html)so that Hel would have presence at the moot while he went about completing the mission.


"...But she's dead, Jim Dukron!"

[KorvinStarmast]

"...But she's dead, Jim Dukron!" No, she's alive (or as alive as any undead can be) and standing there with the two halves of the staff that Roy snapped over his knee (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1022.html).

[jwhouk]

Whoop. I mistakenly thought she was with Durkula in the Afterlife Shell, and recently lost her head to Belkar.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I don't think that we can call Durkula Hight Priest of Hel any more, since he passed that job along to another vampire (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1017.html)so that Hel would have presence at the moot while he went about completing the mission.

Yeah, I’ve recently switched to calling him the former High Priest of Hel, for strict accuracy’s sake, although I do think dropping the adjective could be fine as everyone knows who it refers to. :smallbiggrin:

I held out hope for a while that he’d have a name, like Malack, but I think that ship may have sailed.

[Elfich]

His new little family is Hilgya and Kudzu, he'd be killing the old family.

Being Lawful Evil is all about precise wording.

I would go with "Extended Family"

[martianmister]

I don't think that we can call Durkula Hight Priest of Hel any more, since he passed that job along to another vampire so that Hel would have presence at the moot while he went about completing the mission.

Hel still call him her hight priest.

[Fyraltari]

Besides that was purely for rule-lawyering purposes, Durkon* remained leader in all but name.

[KorvinStarmast]

Besides that was purely for rule-lawyering purposes, Durkon* remained leader in all but name. Fair assessment. I figured that he need not be the "official high priest" to keep doing her mission, but, that the rules lawyerly Godsmoot rules require the high priest be present, so in the rules lawyer sense the baton/staff needed to be passed and, narratively, who the High Priest is, for Hel, isn't as important for the arc to proceed since Durkula was still on a mission from goddess. (Blues Brothers reference)