Durkon's plan

[Roland Itiative]

So, it appears whatever plan Durkon hatched is about to come into fruition, as the Order would be lost otherwise. So, I've been looking back at the old interactions between Durkon and his vampire captor, to try to figure out what exactly he might be planning. He seems to have gotten his idea in comic 963 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0963.html), by realising that Durkula was unable to make the connection between the two memories. Since then, Durkon has been making sure to show memories of his mother to the vampire, starting with comic 983 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0983.html), then 991 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0991.html), 1088 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1088.html), 1089 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1089.html) and the last big memory, which started in 1121 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1121.html) and continued throughout 1124 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1124.html), 1126 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1126.html), 1127 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1127.html), 1128 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1128.html) and finally at the latest comic, 1129 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1129.html). There's also a memory shown in 1112 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1112.html), but that one doesn't seem very relevant, and just a petty way for Durkon to take a jab at the vampire (although it does show Durkon finding his mother's name in the wall of donors). Listed here are only the memories that Durkon showed of his own accord, with no resistance, since his plan was hatched in 983. Before that, there was another uncalled for mother memory at 982 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0962.html), that seems like it can also be important.

So, putting together all of those memories, it should be possible to predict what Durkon's plan is. One interesting fact is that he was the one that ended up choosing the place where the current confrontation is happenning. When the vampire asked why Durkon gave him the idea, he said that it's because the hall is empty, as it's a Tuesday, and the owners close during the night before Odin's day. We also hear that Durkon's mother gathers her friends for a party (possibly in that very same hall?) every other Wednesday night. Both of these week days were said by Durkon's spirit, not shown in a memory (which we know are always reliable, Durkon can't manipulate the information in there at all), so could it be that he lied in one of those accounts, and Sigdi and her friends are about to show up? I don't know, something about the hall being closed on the night before Odin's day seems weird to me, it would make more sense for it to be closed on Odin's day, and perhaps Sigdi and friends then borrow the space for their private party every other week. That lie would require the vampire to not know what day of the week it is, though, so I'm not sure if it's a good prediction.

Aside from that, it seems that Durkon wanted the vampire to hear the full story of how Sigdi lost her husband, and saved her future friends, who she did not know when she chose to do the charity. What could he possibly accomplish with that, though? Does he plan on making the vampire turn Good? Just make him rebel against Hel, even while still being evil? How does the fact the vampire can't notice connections between different memories relate to the plan?

[MartianInvader]

My theory is that Durkon came up with his plan back in #1007 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1007.html), when he was reliving his worst day and cursing all the dwarves to Hel. My guess is that immediately afterwards, he thought about the same memories he's been showing the vampire - those if his mother. These reminded him of who he was, who he could be, and most importantly, who he wanted to be, and set him back on the path of good.

Because the vampire was based on Durkon's worst day, Durkon knows that these memories will have the same effect on him, sending him down the same path.

Of course, you'd have to be crazy to use that plan, right? No one could hope to redeem a being of pure negative energy!

No one, that is, except for Durkon Mother-Loving Thundershield. He may never have the right spell memorized, and may not join the fight at the right time, but when it comes to believing in the good inside all beings, and bring inspirational enough to bring out that good, he is second to none.

[Sky_Schemer]

I think it's unlikely that Durkula would have a complete change of heart based on this.

More likely to me is that Durkon has built up to this scene to convince Durkula that his plan to dominate the Dwarven Elders into voting to destroy the world (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1016.html) will fail. Even if the domination succeeds, being forced to destroy the world and send all of the northern dwarves to Hel absolutely, 100% qualifies as "tak(ing) actions against (their) nature". His mother is the proof: she donated 25,000gp to save the souls of five dwarves she didn't even know when she could have used that money to return her husband or regenerate her arm.

This is why Durkula is non-responsive. He's just discovered that his plan won't work, and because he lacked insight, he didn't realize that all these memories Durkon had been showing were building up to a collective Dwarven understanding of the consequences of a dishonorable death. Nor did he think to ask why these memories were important at the time, which would have given him the understanding he needed.

Durkon has effectively allowed Durkula to waste his time executing a plan that is doomed to fail, and it's far enough along that it is too late to come up with a new one.

[RatElemental]

That's... actually a really good point I hadn't considered. Not that voting to end the world would be against the elder's natures, because even if it was they could still fail to resist. But Dominate specifically can't force a creature to take an obviously suicidal action, and I don't know of anything more obviously suicidal than voting to tell your god to tell the other gods to blow up the world.

[Sky_Schemer]

I think, story-wise, you could reasonably use the Domination effect to force the Dwarven elders to do something indirectly suicidal, such as vote for the gods to end the world. But, the consequences of that action--ten million dwarves condemned to Hel--are far too great to ignore.

[BeerMug Paladin]

At this point I think Durkon's plan has to involve something that would prevent TPK.

The vampire having an identity crisis, like by making it resent something more than what it previously considered Durkon's lowest point could work. If it were to suffer an identity crisis, it might consider Roy's attempt to tell Durkon there was important new information as something it should look into. Not that that could have been something Durkon knew about beforehand. But changing the vampire's goals could at least weaken Hel.

It would amuse me if after Elan's character arc resolving itself by refusing to take action (ie, play the game his father set up for him to play). That Durkon's character arc resolves itself by taking an action he never would have normally taken. (You know, dredging up buried, scorned memories of his past...)

[Onyavar]

More likely to me is that Durkon has built up to this scene to convince Durkula that his plan to dominate the Dwarven Elders into voting to destroy the world (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1016.html) will fail. Even if the domination succeeds, being forced to destroy the world and send all of the northern dwarves to Hel absolutely, 100% qualifies as "tak(ing) actions against (their) nature". His mother is the proof: she donated 25,000gp to save the souls of five dwarves she didn't even know when she could have used that money to return her husband or regenerate her arm.

This is why Durkula is non-responsive. He's just discovered that his plan won't work, and because he lacked insight, he didn't realize that all these memories Durkon had been showing were building up to a collective Dwarven understanding of the consequences of a dishonorable death. Nor did he think to ask why these memories were important at the time, which would have given him the understanding he needed.


That's... actually a really good point I hadn't considered. Not that voting to end the world would be against the elder's natures, because even if it was they could still fail to resist. But Dominate specifically can't force a creature to take an obviously suicidal action, and I don't know of anything more obviously suicidal than voting to tell your god to tell the other gods to blow up the world.

I think so, too. However, Hilgya is proof that basically suicidal actions CAN be commanded: She is standing next to the vampire she came in devoted to destroy, and lets him hold her baby. She doesn't know that Undurkon promised to Durkon to spare the child. Whenever Undurkon feeds the baby to his minions and chops off Hilgya's head, they are both done, and she should know that.

To sum it up, Undurkon could still risk to go through with his plan, and hope that the dwarves won't understand how their decision is suicidal.

[KorvinStarmast]

No one, that is, except for Durkon Mother-Loving Thundershield. He may never have the right spell memorized, and may not join the fight at the right time, but when it comes to believing in the good inside all beings, and bring inspirational enough to bring out that good, he is second to none. He was even able to see some good in Miko (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0201.html)when they first encountered her.

[MartianInvader]

I think, story-wise, you could reasonably use the Domination effect to force the Dwarven elders to do something indirectly suicidal, such as vote for the gods to end the world. But, the consequences of that action--ten million dwarves condemned to Hel--are far too great to ignore.
Note that actions against your nature don't break the domination, they just grant a new save. Durkon*'s save DC is at least 17, probably higher, which means that unless the council members have some incredible Will bonuses, less than half of them will break the domination even if they all get a new save.

[martianmister]

It's also could be argued that voting no to destroying the world means risking the existence of their very own souls.

[Sky_Schemer]

I think so, too. However, Hilgya is proof that basically suicidal actions CAN be commanded: She is standing next to the vampire she came in devoted to destroy, and lets him hold her baby.

As a cleric of Loki, Hilgya not only has no ties to dwarves that are followers of Thor, but a personal belief that she and other followers of Loki have a loophole in the grand bargain. She's also got a low Will save. :)

Thinking narratively instead of tactically, Rich needed to eventually take out Hilgya just like he took out V: she was powerful enough to swing the course of the battle.


Note that actions against your nature don't break the domination, they just grant a new save. Durkon*'s save DC is at least 17, probably higher, which means that unless the council members have some incredible Will bonuses, less than half of them will break the domination even if they all get a new save.

It basically comes down to, is there a rules-based justification for the narrative taking this approach? I think there is. But more important than even that is whether or not Durkula comes to believe that his plan is in trouble.

[brian 333]

It's also could be argued that voting no to destroying the world means risking the existence of their very own souls.

Domination doesn't allow one to consider what others will do in response to the ordered act.

The only question is, "Does voting no physically harm the voter?" What the gods do in response to that is not relevant.

I would argue that dominating the council to obtain a particular vote would nullify the vote. All systems of voting nullify votes made under duress, and even though Dvalin is a mere demigod, he's got to be capable of determining that his clan chiefs are not free to vote as they would choose.

This may not be relevant, or it may be that the Exexarch, (otherwise known as Bobby,) will purposely dominate the dwarves who want to vote "Yes" and have their votes nullified individually.

I have not read Robert's Rules Of Dwarven Order, so I cannot say for certain this is how it works. Hel seems to think it will work, but then she has been known to miscalculate and overreach from time to time.

[Sky_Schemer]

Domination doesn't allow one to consider what others will do in response to the ordered act.

Where is this written?

All the spell description says is "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." The details of what constitutes "against its nature" are open to interpretation, which makes it a GM call.

In the case of OOTS, it's up to Rich as the writer to interpret what this means, and then create a narrative that is internally consistent. Maybe the others are failing their Will saves. Maybe they are finding internal justifications for their commands (this latter one seems to be his approach). But regardless of the specific reason, the story demands that the characters not break out of their Domination at this point in time. Rich just needs a plausible reason for that.

[brian 333]

Where is this written?

All the spell description says is "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." The details of what constitutes "against its nature" are open to interpretation, which makes it a GM call.

In the case of OOTS, it's up to Rich as the writer to interpret what this means, and then create a narrative that is internally consistent. Maybe the others are failing their Will saves. Maybe they are finding internal justifications for their commands (this latter one seems to be his approach). But regardless of the specific reason, the story demands that the characters not break out of their Domination at this point in time. Rich just needs a plausible reason for that.

'Against one's nature' has nothing to do with attitudes, beliefs, or knowledge. Those are aspects of education. Nature has to do with what a character is born with. It is against Durkon's nature to fly. Ordering him to fly across a river is against his nature. It is not against Durkon's nature to walk, but ordering him to walk across the river is against his nature because he cannot walk on water.

On the other hand, he could be ordered to swim across the river. The fact that he's wearing full plate armor isn't relevant. The only consideration possible here is to ask if dwarves can swim. (In my campaign they cannot due to their volume to weight ratio, otherwise known as density. Dwarves weigh the same as humans, but displace 1/3 less water. Humans are very close to neutral bouyancy.)

If it's something the character has done in the past, it's not against his nature, even if the consequences of doing so this time would have unfavorable results.

[Sky_Schemer]

'Against one's nature' has nothing to do with attitudes, beliefs, or knowledge. Those are aspects of education. Nature has to do with what a character is born with. It is against Durkon's nature to fly. Ordering him to fly across a river is against his nature.

That is a rather strict definition, and one that I believe to be patently false. Your nature includes who you are, not merely what you are. In a literary sense, the phrase "It's in my/your/their nature" has that broader meaning ("It is in your nature to destroy yourselves" et. al.)

If you order Durkon to fly, the reasonable interpretation would be to cast Fly, even if that means waiting until tomorrow to obtain a spell, or seeking out a scroll or a potion to give you the ability, or buying a flying mount. The rules specifically allow for a character to find a way to do something they are not physically capable of in that moment:


Once you have given a dominated creature a command, it continues to attempt to carry out that command to the exclusion of all other activities except those necessary for day-to-day survival

If ordered to swim across a river, then they'd swim. If they were wearing heavy armor at the time, they'd simply take it off first.

If ordered to swim across a river in their armor, that sounds pretty self-destructive to me. You'll have to come up with a better way to state that one if you want it to succeed.

[Kish]

How about this suggestion (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0183.html)? Reasonable?

What about handing away your sword in a battle as within the limits of Charm Person (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0458.html)?

That's the standard being used in Rich's writing for mind-control spells. And both the spells there are quite a bit weaker than Dominate Person.

[Fish]

'Against one's nature' has nothing to do with attitudes, beliefs, or knowledge. Those are aspects of education. Nature has to do with what a character is born with.
Wait, so you're saying only inborn characteristics, those innate to the being, will override domination? You can't order a human being to breathe water, because that's inborn, but they'll do anything else?

That sounds wrong to me. That interpretation of domination is "the character will literally do anything he is told, if he is innately capable of doing it." That seems contrary to what the spell suggests: that the dominated person can refuse to obey some orders.

[MartianInvader]

Yeah, unless you want to claim that a future paladin is born with loyalty to their future liege, saying that only things you are born with count as "true nature" is definitely wrong. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0524.html).

That said, the comic I linked is, I believe, the *only* instance of someone breaking Domination due to an order being against their nature. We've seen dominated people attack their allies, walk headlong into traps, sit still while animals deficate on them, even hand over their baby. So the "true nature" bar is still pretty high.

In particular, one would expect that some dwarves are on the Council of Elders because they are expert politicians, not because they are altruists, and they might not get that new save when ordered to vote "Yes". And as I mentioned before, even if there are some on the council who do get a new save, most of them are unlikely to succeed at it.

[Fish]

Agreed. The example of Thanh is a good one. We can see that as an instance where a dominated person was doing something ... and broke out of it.

Instances where a dominated person was ordered to do something, and did it, are not very useful. We cannot see whether an additional saving throw was granted and the person failed it a second time, or whether no saving throw was granted at all. It's not very instructive to use those an example of how domination works. There is no evidence of the presence, or absence, of the thing being claimed.

[Teioh]

Didn’t that Kobold get saves when V used him to shoot Z? At least until Z tried to kill him.

Which sets a low bar, as he was just a hired merc, not some longtime team member.

If that indeed warranted a save, and not just flavor text from V, that means Hayley and Elan fail saves like champs, and Hilyga thinks less of the Order than the Kolbod did Z.

[Kish]

Didn’t that Kobold get saves when V used him to shoot Z?
This hinges on one particular reading of a throwaway line from Vaarsuvius.

I would say "no."

[Sky_Schemer]

How about this suggestion (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0183.html)? Reasonable?

"You influence the actions of the target creature by suggesting a course of activity (limited to a sentence or two). The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the activity sound reasonable."

Borderline abusive. :) Rule of funny?


How about this suggestion (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0183.html)? Reasonable? What about handing away your sword in a battle as within the limits of Charm Person (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0458.html)?

That's the standard being used in Rich's writing for mind-control spells. And both the spells there are quite a bit weaker than Dominate Person.

This example is more reasonable, though it should fall under the "opposed Charisma check" clause:

"You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn’t ordinarily do."

In the end, though, the story isn't going to be decided around the margins of the rules. It's a narrative, and Rich has said that story trumps rules. That doesn't mean he runs roughshod over them, but he does tend to stick within what's plausible and isn't above bending the rules as needed. If the scene requires everyone but Roy and Minrah to fail their Will saves, including a high level cleric like Hilgya, then that's what happens. Plausible and likely are not the same thing.

I am not necessarily married to my theory. It's just that we don't have many theories that fit the story as it has evolved. At minimum, a viable theory for Durkon's plan must:



Be centered around Durkon and his past.
Treat the story of Sigdi, her husband, her actions and motivations for raising five people she didn't know as a significant component, if not the most significant component, of his plan.
Be based on things Durkon explicitly knows or has figured out.
As a corollary to #3, not be dependent on details he can't know (he can assume in general how people he knows will behave, but he can't rely on coincidental timing or actions by others).
Incorporate the reveal that Durkon can, at least on a subtle (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0963.html) level (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1129.html), influence Durkula's behavior.

The other really good theory I have heard on the forums, and I forget who brought it up first, is that Durkula will come to doubt his relationship with Hel. That he'll come to believe he, too, is disposable. The evidence for that would be the level to which dwarves as a whole go to prevent others, even ones they don't know, from being sent to her domain.

[brian 333]

Wait, so you're saying only inborn characteristics, those innate to the being, will override domination? You can't order a human being to breathe water, because that's inborn, but they'll do anything else?

That sounds wrong to me. That interpretation of domination is "the character will literally do anything he is told, if he is innately capable of doing it." That seems contrary to what the spell suggests: that the dominated person can refuse to obey some orders.

That's only half of the exception clause. Self harm is the other. Note that Thann broke free when ordered to attack his liege, but Haley did not. What's the difference?

Self harm. Haley loses nothing by attacking Roy, but Thann loses paladinhood by attacking Shojo. It is a major harm to the character.

Haley might get a save if ordered to kiss an incubus, but not if ordered to kiss a pretty boy, because one is obviously and immediately harmful while the other is not. And as we have seen in comic, it is not against Haley's nature to kiss a pretty boy.

[Fish]

Note that Thann broke free when ordered to attack his liege, but Haley did not. What's the difference?

Self harm.
Nothing in your quote provides evidence whether Haley does or does not get an additional saving throw, or demonstrate that she will automatically obey this command every time it is given. A past event has a 100% chance of having happened, but that does not mean it had a 100% chance of happening at that time.

So like I said, analyzing cases of domination where the person does not break free are not instructive.

Also note the sentence "Subjects will resist this control." (My emphasis.) I don't see how it is productive to pretend that subjects do not resist control. Clearly, they do. Whether they do so effectively and how often they are able to attempt to resist is what is under question, at least for me.

[lawgnome]

The idea that Durkon's plan is solely about making Greg realize that voting for destroying the world is against their nature and might be nigh impossible makes a lot of sense.

Remember, Durkon has been working toward this for a while. This wasn't a spur of the moment thing designed to prevent TPK. It was forced out now as a way to protect Kudzu. "One last memory, all tha way to tha end, an' I'll nae e'en speak fer tha rest o' tha fight" from #1121.

This is the culmination of his plan, but there was no way he knew that he would be building up to TPK when he first thought of the plan.

It has to be something that will wreck Greg's plans in someway, but is not a combat advantage. Dwarves doing anything to avoid Hel seems like the best idea for this.

[brian 333]

Nothing in your quote provides evidence whether Haley does or does not get an additional saving throw, or demonstrate that she will automatically obey this command every time it is given. A past event has a 100% chance of having happened, but that does not mean it had a 100% chance of happening at that time.

So like I said, analyzing cases of domination where the person does not break free are not instructive.

Also note the sentence "Subjects will resist this control." (My emphasis.) I don't see how it is productive to pretend that subjects do not resist control. Clearly, they do. Whether they do so effectively and how often they are able to attempt to resist is what is under question, at least for me.

Understood and I agree.

[MartianInvader]

It has to be something that will wreck Greg's plans in someway, but is not a combat advantage. Dwarves doing anything to avoid Hel seems like the best idea for this.
What? How does showing Greg that his plans were already doomed in any way wreck them? If anything, it warns Greg of the flaws in his plans and gives him a chance to correct them, which *increases* his chances for success.

If Durkon's really so sure that the dwarves will break domination rather than vote "Yes", he should just stay silent and watch as the good guys win.

[Kish]

"You influence the actions of the target creature by suggesting a course of activity (limited to a sentence or two). The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the activity sound reasonable."

Borderline abusive. :) Rule of funny?
Oh, man. I dinnae want ta know how you justify calling "I suggest that you perform no actions except those I explicitly order of you" borderline abusive and arguing that Dominate will choke on "tell him to vote Yes" in the same breath.

[lawgnome]

What? How does showing Greg that his plans were already doomed in any way wreck them? If anything, it warns Greg of the flaws in his plans and gives him a chance to correct them, which *increases* his chances for success.

If Durkon's really so sure that the dwarves will break domination rather than vote "Yes", he should just stay silent and watch as the good guys win.

That's the thing though: It is the only thing I have seen guessed at that sounds like it might actually do something.

Greg is in control. Durkon has no real power to do anything to him. I don't think that anything that Durkon could show Greg will somehow work to give him control back, or else incapacitate him in some way.

So that means that this story needs to be moving toward SOMETHING with these memories (besides just being amazing pieces of writing and backstory) where they have an effect on the story.

- I don't think that they are going to make Greg change his ways
- I don't think that they are going to hide some sort of ambush (Durkon has been working up to this memory for a while, before he knew where the vamps were going to hole up.) Also, if it were going to hide an ambush, why bring it up to Greg in the first place?
- I don't think that they are going to somehow negate or incapacitate Greg (if it were a matter of "filling the hole that he was made from", why would this somehow work now? Durkon has always known about this memory)

The only thing that I can think of is saying to Greg "this is what it means to be a dwarf. This is why you are going to fail". It might end up making Greg try to readjust the plan on the fly, thus allowing for a victory to come from some other angle.



I don't really know, though. This entire plot-line, while amazing, has been super hard to predict.

[Sky_Schemer]

Oh, man. I dinnae want ta know how you justify calling "I suggest that you perform no actions except those I explicitly order of you" borderline abusive and arguing that Dominate will choke on "tell him to vote Yes" in the same breath.

Well, I did put a smiley next to it...

In all honesty I don't really have a way to reconcile that one. The comic was a bit more jokey in those days, but it also relied more on rules humor too. So yeah it's a chink in my theory's armor.

I think the scene with Thanh (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0524.html) works as a better model, though. Rich explicitly calls out the logic there. What if that scene was planted specifically for that purpose, to provide justification for how a dwarf might be able to break domination if forced to do something with considerably greater consequences?

I admit it's thin, but it's something.

[Kish]

In my opinion, it's exceedingly unlikely that Rich ever meant the denouement to consist of an anticlimax like "the villain's scheme would never actually have worked." Thus, I see no reason to mine previous scenes for justification for that conclusion, especially but not limited to when it wouldn't actually resolve the situation; a Greg who couldn't dominate the council, but was morally unmoved from the character who showed so much sadism and bloodlust toward Roy at the Godsmoot, would certainly take six seconds to slaughter the unconscious protagonists of the comic before he moved on, whatever he moved on to.

[Sky_Schemer]

Fair enough. And I agree that this is another weak point.

[woweedd]

How about this suggestion (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0183.html)? Reasonable?

What about handing away your sword in a battle as within the limits of Charm Person (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0458.html)?

That's the standard being used in Rich's writing for mind-control spells. And both the spells there are quite a bit weaker than Dominate Person.
In fairness, the Charm Person example, I would allow as GM. Charm Person makes whoever you use it on think of the caster as a dear friend, and, personally, if I was a battle, and an unarmed friend asked for my sword, i'd do it in a heartbeat.

[Kish]

I could buy that if the guard had kept acting like he was fighting, treating Nale as someone else fighting the same hobgoblin. Instead, he seemingly forgot the hobgoblin existed entirely, turning his back on him to hand his sword to Nale. And got instantly killed for it.

[RatElemental]

We have another example of an enchantment spell failing here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0383.html). Charm person works differently to domination though.

[BeerMug Paladin]

What? How does showing Greg that his plans were already doomed in any way wreck them? If anything, it warns Greg of the flaws in his plans and gives him a chance to correct them, which *increases* his chances for success.

If Durkon's really so sure that the dwarves will break domination rather than vote "Yes", he should just stay silent and watch as the good guys win.

Hey, there's foreshadowing for this! Second to last panel (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1085.html).

Oops. Guess not, considering everything else. But almost.

The reason you give is why I don't understand this theory at all.

That's the thing though: It is the only thing I have seen guessed at that sounds like it might actually do something.

Greg is in control. Durkon has no real power to do anything to him. I don't think that anything that Durkon could show Greg will somehow work to give him control back, or else incapacitate him in some way.

So that means that this story needs to be moving toward SOMETHING with these memories (besides just being amazing pieces of writing and backstory) where they have an effect on the story.

This might be a bit of a reach, but has Durkon's body actually gone home? I don't think Durkula has any reason to go to the place where his mother lives. But Durkon might trick him into going there? To see Sigdi, presumably.

As a bonus, it would make a lot more sense if the surprise encounter with Durkon's extended family occurs in Durkon's home, rather than in some random hall in the town where Durkon lived. So, for the people who like that theory, there you go.

[woweedd]

We have another example of an enchantment spell failing here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0383.html). Charm person works differently to domination though.
One of your favorite tricks as a GM is getting the players to use Charm Person on a creature whose concept of "friendship" is...fundamentally unhelpful. Charm Person is a kinda broad spell.

[Couatl]

I was left with the impression that the memory's idea is to show to Durkula that the plan is utterly useless. If you can resurrect a soul out of Hel's domain and give it a second chance this might happen with the whole destroy the world thing.

[RatElemental]

I was left with the impression that the memory's idea is to show to Durkula that the plan is utterly useless. If you can resurrect a soul out of Hel's domain and give it a second chance this might happen with the whole destroy the world thing.

If the world ends there's no one left to res the dwarves, and the corpses of the dwarves would also cease to be. There's also a maximum time from the death of the person after which a spell can no longer raise them. It's also expensive.

Thus, several things are wrong with this theory. The next world would have to include clerics, those clerics would need to be able to get true resurrection, they would need to somehow know the previous world existed, they would need to somehow unambiguously identify each individual dwarf one by one, they would need to get a ton of diamonds, and they would have to do all of this before a certain number of years had passed.

[MartianInvader]

I still think Durkon is going to affect Greg's worldview, causing him to start caring about the dwarves or at least about some of them. Sure, we're not going to see a sudden, wholesale alignment change...

But an act of self-sacrifice, causing a major Oots villain to change their perspective in a major, meaningful, lasting way, becoming less selfish and more caring about others?

That is a thing that can happen. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0451.html)

[Jetty]

In my opinion, it's exceedingly unlikely that Rich ever meant the denouement to consist of an anticlimax like "the villain's scheme would never actually have worked."

Spoiler for the original Fallout:
This was the case in the original Fallout game, and I don't see anybody complaining about that storytelling.You could convince The Master that his plan to create Utopia through turning all humans into Super Mutants wouldn't work; the race would eventually die out as all Super Mutants are sterile. I always particularly liked that ending. Though perhaps because of the differing medium, the same plot elements would have different effects. In Fallout, finding that out and being able to prove this to the villain required a hell of a lot of exploring and talking and maybe almost dumb luck. Being spoonfed the same in a webcomic might not have the same appeal.

[smuchmuch]

I could be wrong but I though Durkon plan was just to show the vampire the memory that really made him he person he was, the kind of person who would sacrifice himself or others (aka an extreme doormat as the vampire would put it), while banking that since the vampire is made of his darker, more repressed feelings, the scene woud be completly anahema to its very nature and blow the vampire mind, making him loose concentration at a crucial moment.

[Kish]

Spoiler for the original Fallout:
This was the case in the original Fallout game, and I don't see anybody complaining about that storytelling.You could convince The Master that his plan to create Utopia through turning all humans into Super Mutants wouldn't work; the race would eventually die out as all Super Mutants are sterile. I always particularly liked that ending. Though perhaps because of the differing medium, the same plot elements would have different effects. In Fallout, finding that out and being able to prove this to the villain required a hell of a lot of exploring and talking and maybe almost dumb luck. Being spoonfed the same in a webcomic might not have the same appeal.
Let me rephrase.

I don't think Rich is going for an anticlimax like "the heroes didn't have to do anything." "The villain's scheme will result in something horrible that no one, including the villain, wants" is of course quite usual: the original X-Men movie and the first Baldur's Gate first come to mind.

In the X-Men movie, Magneto meant to turn all the world leaders into mutants, thereby ensuring that protecting mutant rights would become a priority to all of them. The fact that his machine would actually have killed them instead was not a reason he didn't need to be stopped.

Sarevok believed that killing on a godlike scale would cause him to ascend and become a god, so he tried to start a war. The reality, that he was being misled and his role was to bring the god Bhaal back from the dead, did not change the fact that he needed to be stopped.

By contrast, what's being proposed here is: The vampires dominate the clan elders unimpeded by the Order, the clan elders vote "no" anyway, Hel's scheme goes fizzle.

[Sky_Schemer]

By contrast, what's being proposed here is: The vampires dominate the clan elders unimpeded by the Order, the clan elders vote "no" anyway, Hel's scheme goes fizzle.

It would be an anticlimax if that is literally how it went down, because there would not be a satisfying explanation for why things ended as they did. This is basically the War of the Worlds ending: nothing anyone does matters, and we don't learn why until the very end. It's a lot more satisfying to have the answer revealed to you along the way.

That being said, I actually agree with you. I don't think my original hypothesis is entirely correct because what is still missing from this theory is Durkon's agency. It would not be enough to reveal that Durkula's plan won't work (if that's indeed the case): Durkon has to do something that causes Durkula to change what he does. That's the part that is still missing.

I don't think it's as simple or dramatic as "Durkula has a complete change of heart". That would feel just as hollow. But there's a lot of ground between that and "nothing at all".

[The Pilgrim]

Note that the plan is not Greg's, but Hel's. And Hel, despite all her limitations, is still a Goddess. When a plot scales to the level of Godly Schemes, we are talking about carefully brewed schemes relying on knowledge beyond the comprehension of mere mortals, that doesn't have structural flaws.

Hel knows dwarven nature well, her whole source of power in the current iteration of the World relies on exploiting the dwarves. That has been her whole and only business since this world was created.

Also note that dominating the elders is the Exarch's task at this moment, not Greg's. Greg has tasked himself with stopping the Order, who are seen as the biggest threat to Hel's plan. Being able to dominate the Elders is taken as granted, and thus entrusted to a second line guy.

So my gut tells me that the Order will stop Hel by the usual way Heroes defeat a God: Not by outsmarting her but by showing a level of resolve beyond the expectations of a God used to understimate what mortals can achieve.

[nmphuong91]

I think it's unlikely that Durkula would have a complete change of heart based on this.

More likely to me is that Durkon has built up to this scene to convince Durkula that his plan to dominate the Dwarven Elders into voting to destroy the world (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1016.html) will fail. Even if the domination succeeds, being forced to destroy the world and send all of the northern dwarves to Hel absolutely, 100% qualifies as "tak(ing) actions against (their) nature". His mother is the proof: she donated 25,000gp to save the souls of five dwarves she didn't even know when she could have used that money to return her husband or regenerate her arm.

This is why Durkula is non-responsive. He's just discovered that his plan won't work, and because he lacked insight, he didn't realize that all these memories Durkon had been showing were building up to a collective Dwarven understanding of the consequences of a dishonorable death. Nor did he think to ask why these memories were important at the time, which would have given him the understanding he needed.

Durkon has effectively allowed Durkula to waste his time executing a plan that is doomed to fail, and it's far enough along that it is too late to come up with a new one.

1. The dominated can't connect the dot, nor see any indirect consequence of their action.
Proof:
- Given your baby to a murderous undead monster is not against a mother's nature.
- Standing idle while hearing your baby's cry is not against a mother's nature.
- Stand next to the same undead is not self harm.
- Fighting against former comrade and consequently become unconcious infront of several vampires is not self-harm either.
- Unlike Thanh who stagger in his action to indicate his resistance, these action above don't even have any sign of hesitation.
-> Saying yes in a loud voice is probably not against anyone's nature.

2. What Sigdi said meant "Being (an ideal) dwarf...". Proof:
- Hurak, Hilgya, Ponchula. About half of Northern Pantheon are chaotic/evil god with their follower. That should be proof that dwarven society is as diverse as human's. May be a bit less, but they are not all Sigdi.
- The reaction of everyone at the temple on Sigdi's decision, and Durkon's "I still dunnae understand" show that Sigdi and her action are the exception, not the norm among dwarf.
- Durkon's concern about "bad dwarves", show that they are not as rare as endangered animal, but a real possibility.
- Most politics system tend to elect most Chaotic folk of a society to the top. Fantasy dwarf might have a way around this, but it's still a concern.
-> It's unrealistic to expect that the dwarven race or dwarven council to be made of Sigdi, and Sigdi alone. It's also unrealistic for Durkula to jump to that conclusion upon seeing a grand total of one Sigdi and abandon his plan. His Wis is not that low.

[Cazero]

When a plot scales to the level of Godly Schemes, we are talking about carefully brewed schemes relying on knowledge beyond the comprehension of mere mortals, that doesn't have structural flaws.
Hah ! Not even close. You think of gods as flawless beings. They're not.
This is a polytheistic pantheon that for the most part describe its gods as regular people with a lot of personal power and overinflated egos, within the context of a D&D universe where mortals overthrowing gods by physical force is not only possible but also expected from epic level play. Gods being competent schemers is only expected from those ruling over "smart people things" like secrets or trickery.

[Sky_Schemer]

1. The dominated can't connect the dot, nor see any indirect consequence of their action.

People keep asserting this. There is zero evidence that this is the case. The scene with Thanh does establish that very clearly: dominated people are still aware of the consequences of their actions, even if they are powerless to prevent it.


Proof:

None of this is really proof of anything. "Against your nature" is a high bar, and even then it's just a new save with a +2 modifier. And remember, this is a story, not a game with dice rolls. If the story demands that characters fail their saving throws, then they will fail their saving throws regardless of their abilities.


-> Saying yes in a loud voice is probably not against anyone's nature.

They know what they are saying yes to.


- Hurak, Hilgya, Ponchula. About half of Northern Pantheon are chaotic/evil god with their follower. That should be proof that dwarven society is as diverse as human's. May be a bit less, but they are not all Sigdi.

This is actively refuted in the comic by Hel itself. The level of Sigdi's commitment and sense of sacrifice may be exceptional, but Dwarven society is still the most honor-bound society on the planet (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1083.html).


All this being said, others have given solid narrative arguments for why my theory is probably not correct.

[Kish]

They know what they are saying yes to.
Hypothetically speaking, if the vampires dominating them first told them, "Forget what you're voting on," before telling them which way to vote, would you say they'd get a new save for that? Most people are very good at forgetting and practice it often throughout their lives.

[Keltest]

Hypothetically speaking, if the vampires dominating them first told them, "Forget what you're voting on," before telling them which way to vote, would you say they'd get a new save for that? Most people are very good at forgetting and practice it often throughout their lives.

Personally, as a DM, I wouldn't allow that at all. For one thing, I am skeptical that deliberately forgetting something is any more within a person's power than forgetting to breathe is. For another, once theyre dominated, they aren't actually doing anything of their own initiative except for tasks necessary for day to day survival. "forget what youre about to vote on" requires them to have been intending to vote on something, which they couldn't do while being dominated.

[The Pilgrim]

Hah ! Not even close. You think of gods as flawless beings. They're not.
This is a polytheistic pantheon that for the most part describe its gods as regular people with a lot of personal power and overinflated egos, within the context of a D&D universe where mortals overthrowing gods by physical force is not only possible but also expected from epic level play. Gods being competent schemers is only expected from those ruling over "smart people things" like secrets or trickery.

And yet even the dumbest original pantheon God in the OOTS world is someone who has been around for far, far longer than any mortal. And who knows very well the rules under which the World operates because, if nothing else, they belong to the gang that made them.

So I would have a hard time believing Hel could coconut a plan prone to failure because she didn't know perfectly well the rules under which vampiric domination works, and their limits regarding dwarves. Specially since vampires, and dwarven souls by default, have been under her portfolio since the very creation of the World.

[Sky_Schemer]

Hypothetically speaking, if the vampires dominating them first told them, "Forget what you're voting on," before telling them which way to vote, would you say they'd get a new save for that? Most people are very good at forgetting and practice it often throughout their lives.

Something this overt doesn't pass the smell test for me, but people are good at rationalizing. I don't think there's a mechanic for it in the game, but narratively speaking? Internally justifying an action that's being forced on you instead of fighting against it has the right feel to it. This may be what Rich was showing at the start of the battle. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1123.html)

[The Pilgrim]

They know what they are saying yes to.

Do they? The Plan may very well involve that the Elders enter the Hall already under Domination. So they can very well be told to ignore whatever the Chairman is saying and just spend the time mentally singing some dumb catchy tune. And then, at the given moment, be told to say "Yes" in a loud voice.

And that's just a fast-backed hypoteses on how the Vampires can circunvent the hypotetical problem of dwarven elders resisting the domination for being told to do something against their nature.

[Ruck]

- Most politics system tend to elect most Chaotic folk of a society to the top. Fantasy dwarf might have a way around this, but it's still a concern.

Wait, what?

[Sky_Schemer]

Do they? The Plan may very well involve that the Elders enter the Hall already under Domination.

That is a really good point. And it could explain why the Exarch needs to be well versed in the procedures.

[Cazero]

So I would have a hard time believing Hel could coconut a plan prone to failure because she didn't know perfectly well the rules under which vampiric domination works, and their limits regarding dwarves. Specially since vampires, and dwarven souls by default, have been under her portfolio since the very creation of the World.I'm pretty darn certain Hel has no clue what it means to be a dwarf. She's not one and was never interested in what they feel. She even taught factualy false information to the one most important vampire to her ploy when teaching it that their patron god Thor was a deceitful, untrustworthy wretch (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1089.html) instead of a good-hearted simpletoon.
Regardless of perfect information on vampires and domination effects, she has no clue about dwarven nature and if said nature would stop domination effect from working. So if her plan relies heavily on them, it might fail.

[The Pilgrim]

I'm pretty darn certain Hel has no clue what it means to be a dwarf. She's not one and was never interested in what they feel. She even taught factualy false information to the one most important vampire to her ploy when teaching it that their patron god Thor was a deceitful, untrustworthy wretch (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1089.html) instead of a good-hearted simpletoon.
Regardless of perfect information on vampires and domination effects, she has no clue about dwarven nature and if said nature would stop domination effect from working. So if her plan relies heavily on them, it might fail.

That's like saying that a Computer Engineer has no clue about what it means to be a Computer because he is not one. And, thus, has no clue about if approaching a magnet to a Computer will affect or not the data stored on it's hard drives.

Hel was there when dwarves were designed and built as a race. Hel knows how they operate, mechanically, and the limits of a Domination effect on one of them. Has also had time to experiment since she has got nothing but dwarven souls for a really looooong time. If dwarves had any built-in secret resistance against Domination, she would definitely know about it. Because she was there when they were designed. Specially if such resistance would trigger under circumstances related to her bet with Thor and Loki.

So, no, Hel knows dwarves just get the standard save reroll with a +2 if instructed to do something against their nature. A bumper but not that hard to overcome. And will have instructed her minions on how to play the ruse preventing triggering such reroll has much as possible.

Regarding the opinion on Thor, that's not Hel's, but Greg's. As a loyal hooligan of Hel, he is prone to depise her enemies. Though Hel probably shares a similar opinion. Still, her personal opinion on her relatives has no bearing on her capacity to know and understand the rules under which the World
she helped build operates.

And then you have Loki. The Trickster God per excelence. Do you think Loki would have bothered to send Hilgyia help the Order foil Hel's plan if he knew her plan was doomed to fail? As opposite of just relaxing and laught at Hel's face when she unfolds it and fails?

[woweedd]

- Most politics system tend to elect most Chaotic folk of a society to the top. Fantasy dwarf might have a way around this, but it's still a concern.
Um...What's that supposed to mean?

[nmphuong91]

People keep asserting this. There is zero evidence that this is the case. The scene with Thanh does establish that very clearly: dominated people are still aware of the consequences of their actions, even if they are powerless to prevent it.

Does he? The act of attacking his lord goes against his nature, not that he ever mention that he was aware of any consequence.


None of this is really proof of anything. "Against your nature" is a high bar, and even then it's just a new save with a +2 modifier. And remember, this is a story, not a game with dice rolls. If the story demands that characters fail their saving throws, then they will fail their saving throws regardless of their abilities.

"- Unlike Thanh who stagger in his action to indicate his resistance, these action above don't even have any sign of hesitation."
The point is: They didn't even get a saving throw to fail. If it's against their nature, I'd expect they stagger a bit while mumbling ("Must...") before carry out the action anyway.


They know what they are saying yes to.

Does Hilgya know what she is giving her baby to? Does Elan know who he is fighting (without ever staggering in resistance)? Does he know that he is commiting suicide with the rest of the world?



This is actively refuted in the comic by Hel itself. The level of Sigdi's commitment and sense of sacrifice may be exceptional, but Dwarven society is still the most honor-bound society on the planet (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1083.html).

Nothing refuted. Dwarven is the most honor-bound society on the planet does not refute the fact that they have their fair share of bad apple. And how "most" compare to the rest? If "most" mean "only slightly better than Azure City", then you can expect "Kubola" the Councilor and Lord Shoja the Head Councilor in the council as well.
Beside, Durkula knew "Dwarven society is still the most honor-bound society" before he knew Sigdi, and still think that his plan is good. Not that knowing Sigdi change anything he knew about the dwarven society other than "they have a really exceptional dwarf".

[KorvinStarmast]

Um...What's that supposed to mean? It means that someone has no understanding of politics.

[DaveOTN]

My favorite theory so far (not mine, I've seen a couple people mention it) is that, because of Durkula's inability to "connect dots", he doesn't quite grasp the complexities of what happened between Durkon and Hilgya. He's going to say something that seems reasonable, to him, but completely flips her out, giving her a chance to break the domination. The "bein' a dwarf is about taking those feelings and buryin' 'em" line is especially well-suited for this, since Durkon said it when he told Hilgya to go back to her family - but Durkula may not see the connection between the two scenes at all.

Of course, the problem with that theory is that Durkon didn't know Hilgya was there when he planned this out - his comment about the "big fight scene" occurs in #1116, before the Chaos Giraffes show up - so either Durkon changed his plan on the fly, or it doesn't involve Hilgya at all. That leaves us with a similar domination-breaking slipup for some other party member (it won't be Roy - Durkula is very wary of him already) - most likely Belkar, given that most of Durkon's memories of him are that he's an evil little jerk, that Durkon sacrificed himself to save him, and Durkula won't believe Belkar is capable of personal growth over it.

So my prediction is something like this:
1. Durkula, unable to make sense of Sigdi's sacrifice otherwise, decides the real lesson is "If you save someone from certain death, they owe you big time, and that's useful."
2. Durkula somehow threatens Belkar, telling him he can either die or join Team Vampire.
3. Rather than save himself, Belkar does something heroic (pours a potion down Varsuuvius's throat, say ("Protect V") or just staking Durkula), dying in the process, but giving the Order a chance to get back in the battle.

[Keltest]

My favorite theory so far (not mine, I've seen a couple people mention it) is that, because of Durkula's inability to "connect dots", he doesn't quite grasp the complexities of what happened between Durkon and Hilgya. He's going to say something that seems reasonable, to him, but completely flips her out, giving her a chance to break the domination. The "bein' a dwarf is about taking those feelings and buryin' 'em" line is especially well-suited for this, since Durkon said it when he told Hilgya to go back to her family - but Durkula may not see the connection between the two scenes at all.

Of course, the problem with that theory is that Durkon didn't know Hilgya was there when he planned this out - his comment about the "big fight scene" occurs in #1116, before the Chaos Giraffes show up - so either Durkon changed his plan on the fly, or it doesn't involve Hilgya at all. That leaves us with a similar domination-breaking slipup for some other party member (it won't be Roy - Durkula is very wary of him already) - most likely Belkar, given that most of Durkon's memories of him are that he's an evil little jerk, that Durkon sacrificed himself to save him, and Durkula won't believe Belkar is capable of personal growth over it.

So my prediction is something like this:
1. Durkula, unable to make sense of Sigdi's sacrifice otherwise, decides the real lesson is "If you save someone from certain death, they owe you big time, and that's useful."
2. Durkula somehow threatens Belkar, telling him he can either die or join Team Vampire.
3. Rather than save himself, Belkar does something heroic (pours a potion down Varsuuvius's throat, say ("Protect V") or just staking Durkula), dying in the process, but giving the Order a chance to get back in the battle.

That seems unlikely to me, since Durkon has been working on this plan since well before Hilgya showed up.

[Ruck]

That's been one of my biggest obstacles to figuring out what Durkon's plan is. Every theory that seems plausible requires some element that only came into play after he hatched the plan. I'm stumped, unless Durkon somehow knows something about how vampires work that I don't (because I don't think the "Durkon somehow takes control back of his body" theories are plausible otherwise).

[pi4t]

'Against one's nature' has nothing to do with attitudes, beliefs, or knowledge. Those are aspects of education. Nature has to do with what a character is born with. It is against Durkon's nature to fly. Ordering him to fly across a river is against his nature. It is not against Durkon's nature to walk, but ordering him to walk across the river is against his nature because he cannot walk on water.

On the other hand, he could be ordered to swim across the river. The fact that he's wearing full plate armor isn't relevant. The only consideration possible here is to ask if dwarves can swim. (In my campaign they cannot due to their volume to weight ratio, otherwise known as density. Dwarves weigh the same as humans, but displace 1/3 less water. Humans are very close to neutral bouyancy.)

That's not correct. Under your interpretation, it would be impossible to force a target to do something against its nature, as they would be physically unable to do it. But the spell contains a clause on what happens if a target is "forced to take actions against its nature". Moreover, the consequences aren't just that the compulsion doesn't work (in which case I could see it just being there as a "no, you can't cast dominate person on yourself and order yourself to start flying" clause). The target gets a chance to throw off the effect completely, and if they fail they're still forced to take those actions. Why would they get an extra save to resist the effect altogether if you ordered them to do something physically impossible? Since it's blatantly obvious that dwarves can't fly, what motive would the caster have to order Durkon to do so? And if there's no reason to give that order anyway, why add an extra negative effect if someone does give it? Why not just say that the spell doesn't allow the target to do things it wouldn't be physically capable of normally?

On the other hand, if we interpret "against its nature" as "physically possible, but goes against everything it stands for" the clause makes sense. There are plenty of situations where the caster would like to force the target of the dominate to do something like that. And since, if the caster gives such order and the extra save is failed, the target will actually do what they were ordered to do, there are situations where the caster may want to take the risk of the target breaking free in the hope of making them do something. Or they may be unaware that something is against their nature in this sense: on the other hand it's generally going to be blatantly obvious what a character is or isn't physically capable of, and if in doubt the caster can always ask them before giving the order. For both these reasons, the clause is likely to actually see use, rather than unnecessarily taking up space in the core rulebook.

[oonker]

That's been one of my biggest obstacles to figuring out what Durkon's plan is. Every theory that seems plausible requires some element that only came into play after he hatched the plan. I'm stumped, unless Durkon somehow knows something about how vampires work that I don't (because I don't think the "Durkon somehow takes control back of his body" theories are plausible otherwise).

Maybe Durkon's plan was "I'll use the inability of Durkula to connect dots in my favor... SOMEHOW! I just need the perfect situation to arise"

And when he saw Hilgya with little Kudzu, he thought "now is the time for it".

[Sky_Schemer]

Well. Now we know what Durkon's plan was. And I have to admit, I am still stumped.

Why now instead of literally any other time since he figured this out? Unless, I guess, he figured this out just now, but it doesn't seem that way. I don't see how delaying this until this moment provided an advantage. His vampires are still under his control, so it's not like he needed the rest of the Order to deal with them.

Anyone have any guesses here?

[SlashDash]

Just want to point out that a lot of you assume they are going to dominate council. We don't know that.

They could plan to vamp them, bribe them, blackmail them, threaten them or whatever.

We don't know what the exarch is doing.

[Resileaf]

Well. Now we know what Durkon's plan was. And I have to admit, I am still stumped.

Why now instead of basically any other time since he figured this out? Unless, I guess, he figured this out just now, but it doesn't seem that way. I don't see how delaying this until this moment provided an advantage. His vampires are still under his control, so it's not like he needed the rest of the Order to deal with them.

Anyone have any guesses here?

Maybe if he had been showing memories too quickly, or in the wrong order, the effect would not have been powerful enough. Or Greg would have realized what Durkon was trying to do and stopped him.

[Sky_Schemer]

We don't know what the exarch is doing.

We know what the plan is. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1016.html)

[Kaptin Keen]

... in before he grabs a gem a ressurects himself :p

[Kish]

Well. Now we know what Durkon's plan was. And I have to admit, I am still stumped.

Why now instead of literally any other time since he figured this out? Unless, I guess, he figured this out just now, but it doesn't seem that way.

I don't see why he wouldn't have. He got one piece of the puzzle when Greg was unable to put together connections as straightforward as "being too eager to help/being too reluctant to help." Greg gave him another at the Godsmoot by explaining the mechanics of vampire creation, but that also shook Durkon, who had been nearly as attached to the idea that he felt no anger or resentment about his duty as Greg was to the idea that he didn't care about anything Durkon did. Before Durkon could make Greg see that Greg is in fact Durkon, Durkon needed to move beyond "Roy, ye daft fool, how can ye still think tha's me?!?"

Listening to Cindy and the Exarch talk about their different relationships with their hosts might have given Durkon a clue, too.

[Cazero]

Why now instead of literally any other time since he figured this out? Unless, I guess, he figured this out just now, but it doesn't seem that way. I don't see how delaying this until this moment provided an advantage. His vampires are still under his control, so it's not like he needed the rest of the Order to deal with them.

Anyone have any guesses here?
Durkon's plan is based on a deep undertanding of how people grow as persons. The trick was to push Greg into taking all his lifetime worth of memories, in one go, without a dismissive mindset, because if Greg does that he litteraly becomes Durkon.

If Durkon tried to force all his memories, Greg would have rejected them. So he had to wait for Greg to ask for them.
If Durkon showed that memory too early, Greg simply wouldn't have been interested in the answer. So Durkon had to build Greg's interest with other memories beforehand.

And in the hypothetical scenario where Greg progressively absorbed all of Durkon's memories, the pacing would change the entire experience.

[Keltest]

I don't see why he wouldn't have. He got one piece of the puzzle when Greg was unable to put together connections as straightforward as "being too eager to help/being too reluctant to help." Greg gave him another at the Godsmoot by explaining the mechanics of vampire creation, but that also shook Durkon, who had been nearly as attached to the idea that he felt no anger or resentment about his duty as Greg was to the idea that he didn't care about anything Durkon did. Before Durkon could make Greg see that Greg is in fact Durkon, Durkon needed to move beyond "Roy, ye daft fool, how can ye still think tha's me?!?"

Listening to Cindy and the Exarch talk about their different relationships with their hosts might have given Durkon a clue, too.

Durkon was also limited by how quickly he could show Greg the memories. He could only push so hard before Greg got suspicious and tried to put a stop to it somehow, and even then he still nearly blew it.

[Silverionmox]

I think it's unlikely that Durkula would have a complete change of heart based on this.

More likely to me is that Durkon has built up to this scene to convince Durkula that his plan to dominate the Dwarven Elders into voting to destroy the world (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1016.html) will fail. Even if the domination succeeds, being forced to destroy the world and send all of the northern dwarves to Hel absolutely, 100% qualifies as "tak(ing) actions against (their) nature". His mother is the proof: she donated 25,000gp to save the souls of five dwarves she didn't even know when she could have used that money to return her husband or regenerate her arm. She could also have resurrected just 4 - still very nice - and actually take care of her existing responsibilities (Durkon and herself). But no, she had to make a proud and egocentric big gesture instead. She could even restore her arm and use her increased earning capacity to save up for the fifth resurrection if she felt obligated, or keep working all her life to pay for resurrections for random strangers. Now, she's just a wretch living on charity money that is now not available for someone else who didn't get a chance to fix themselves. Worse, she also made Durkon's life pointlessly harder by doing so.



This is why Durkula is non-responsive. He's just discovered that his plan won't work, and because he lacked insight, he didn't realize that all these memories Durkon had been showing were building up to a collective Dwarven understanding of the consequences of a dishonorable death. Nor did he think to ask why these memories were important at the time, which would have given him the understanding he needed.

Durkon has effectively allowed Durkula to waste his time executing a plan that is doomed to fail, and it's far enough along that it is too late to come up with a new one.

Voting yes or no in the godsmoot is not against the nature of a dwarf. If consequences were taken into account, then why did Haley, Elan and Belkar attack Roy?

[Rrmcklin]

She could also have resurrected just 4 - still very nice - and actually take care of her existing responsibilities (Durkon and herself). But no, she had to make a proud and egocentric big gesture instead. She could even restore her arm and use her increased earning capacity to save up for the fifth resurrection if she felt obligated, or keep working all her life to pay for resurrections for random strangers. Now, she's just a wretch living on charity money that is now not available for someone else who didn't get a chance to fix themselves. Worse, she also made Durkon's life pointlessly harder by doing so.



Voting yes or no in the godsmoot is not against the nature of a dwarf. If consequences were taken into account, then why did Haley, Elan and Belkar attack Roy?

I mentioned this in the other thread, but why are you assuming she even knew she was pregnant at the time? As for her responsibility to herself, you do understand that part of being good is being willing to put others before yourself, right? She didn't even want the priest to tell them she paid for it. And as she said, she isn't living off of charity; a pension isn't charity she earned every bit of it.

Most of your complaints only work if you actually ignore very basic things told to us.

[Sky_Schemer]

Voting yes or no in the godsmoot is not against the nature of a dwarf.

Sending 10,000,000 dwarves to Hel would probably qualify. Though admittedly that's just a guess. And the point is moot, anyway.


If consequences were taken into account, then why did Haley, Elan and Belkar attack Roy?

Failed saving throw. And also because this is a story, not a game ruled by dice rolls, so if Rich needs characters to fail their saving throws then they fail their saving throws regardless of their bonuses.

Any other questions?

[hroþila]

Failed saving throw. And also because this is a story, not a game ruled by dice rolls, so if Rich needs characters to fail their saving throws then they fail their saving throws regardless of their bonuses.

Any other questions?
That's tantamount to saying that the vampire realized his plan can't work because he's the villain of a story, and not the kind of story where the villains win in the end.

[Sky_Schemer]

That's tantamount to saying that the vampire realized his plan can't work because he's the villain of a story, and not the kind of story where the villains win in the end.

No, that was Tarquin's story. Only he didn't figure out who the real villain was until the end of the book.

[MartianInvader]

Because the vampire was based on Durkon's worst day, Durkon knows that these memories will have the same effect on him, sending him down the same path.

MAN was I close!

[Kish]

No, that was Tarquin's story. Only he didn't figure out who the real villain was until the end of the book.
Y'need to reread Blood Runs in the Family. Tarquin thought he was the main villain and Elan was in Empire Strikes Back. He expected to be defeated; his objection was that Elan wasn't being the main character.