O-Chul and Durkon compare and contrast?

[Takver]

O-Chul. Durkon. The two most unimpeachable Lawful Good characters in the comic. (I love Roy, but I love him because he struggles.) Selfless and unwavering in their opposition to evil. Powers granted by their gods. Duty, loyalty, honor. A formidable will to endure. But perhaps their most admirable quality is their influence on souls caught up with evil. Surely O-Chul's work with the MITD is the most important he's ever done, and Durkon's influence on both Belkar and his vampire may turn out to be the same.

So how would you contrast them? I mean, yeah, one's an Azurite paladin, non-Order member, with a high Con score, while the other's a dead dwarf with a high Wis score, but I mean the important stuff. Their methods, values. Things one of them could do that the other couldn't. Themes they represent. If they spent some time together, what might each admire, or gently chide, the other for? Or are they pretty much, when stripped right down to their essence, exactly the same character, just with different narrative functions?

[hamishspence]

The O-Chul Kickstarter story shows one fundamental difference in their upbringing:

O-Chul's parents were bandits, and they raised him that way - before being killed. O-Chul was adopted by a kind-hearted soldier. As a result - he's a big believer in redemption - because he's been the beneficiary of it.

[SilverCacaobean]

They do have some similarities I guess. They're both pretty stoic (Though maybe Durkon a bit less so (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0170.html)) and they both have pretty strong convictions. And a beard. Can't think of anything else.

I wouldn't call O-chul introverted and apparently he's better with words than Durkon (I think there's a post by Rich saying that he's raised his diplomacy skill).

Don't have time to think more about it unfortunately.

[martianmister]

They're pretty similar characters, despite of differences in their upbringing. Only difference is that O-Chul is a much more serious character, more lawful and have less tolerance for guys like Belkar.

[hamishspence]

They do have some similarities I guess. They're both pretty stoic (Though maybe Durkon a bit less so (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0170.html)) and they both have pretty strong convictions. And a beard. Can't think of anything else.

In Dungeon Crawlin' Fools commentary, The Giant says Durkon "probably has a terribly low Charisma" and during Redcloak's interrogation, O-Chul admits to Charisma being his dump stat, when Redcloak catches him lying.

[Takver]

They're pretty similar characters, despite of differences in their upbringing. Only difference is that O-Chul is a much more serious character, more lawful and have less tolerance for guys like Belkar.

Yeah, Durkon's been used to tell a lot more jokes than O-Chul, probably just because he was there at the very beginning when all the characters were conceived to tell different kinds of jokes. So he has these comical quirks, like fear of trees. Where O-Chul was introduced later on, when the comic was more serious.


I wouldn't call O-chul introverted and apparently he's better with words than Durkon (I think there's a post by Rich saying that he's raised his diplomacy skill).

I agree that Durkon is quieter. He's fundamentally among strangers, away from his kind, and being with the Order has probably felt like one long diversion from what he really wants to do with his life (go back home). I suppose O-Chul is now a refugee, and has been a prisoner, but he's still playing the role he wants to play, in his chosen role as a paladin of the Sapphire Guard.

[Emanick]

I think the biggest difference between the two characters (besides their backgrounds, which can't productively be discussed without spoiler tags) is probably the amount of choice they had in their respective fates.

O-Chul chose his calling. He didn't choose to be Redcloak's prisoner, sure, but he chose to be a soldier, he chose to be a paladin, and he chose to lay down his life in defense of the Gates. The fact that that last decision led directly to his life as a tortured prisoner is a coincidence, but he knew he was taking a deadly risk that could end very badly for him, so in that sense, he knowingly accepted the risk. O-Chul is an example of a morally pure, stoic, extraordinarily tough and determined soul who actively chose the grueling path he found himself on. I think that additional agency makes a difference: it means the path his life took was formed more by his own decision-making process than by external forces, and perhaps that makes his suffering more bearable. It also arguably means he should get more credit for his noble decisions, because he had far more off-ramps to take than Durkon did.

Durkon, on the other hand, is much more a victim of fate. Certainly he has agency, and, like O-Chul, it is only because he repeatedly chose to take the difficult and morally outstanding path in the face of ugly circumstances that he is the man (or dwarf, if you see "man" as a species as well as a gender) he is today. But, as we know, he was thrust into the adventuring life not out of choice, but because a certain High Priest made a very cruel decision and refused to explain a thing to the poor cleric. It is sheer luck (or misfortune, if you like) that he is currently on a mission to save the world; as Book 0 reveals, before he met Roy he was not necessarily doing the most heroic work, although he also can't necessarily be blamed for that. Nor did he choose to become a captive spirit inside his own mind and body; although O-Chul too was a prisoner for a while, "being a POW" is, I think, a much more predictable outcome of fighting a war than "having an undead spirit hijack my mind and body and drive me around like a giant sapient marionette with the power to bring down reality as we know it and create a New World Order" is as a consequence of adventuring. Again and again, Durkon is a victim, and it is only through his strength of character, stolid will, and exceptional stoicism and purity of heart that he is able to prevail in his trials.

Is either path more impressive than the other? I don't know. They're both pretty dang impressive. But one is far more voluntary, and I find that an interesting distinction.

[Rynael]

You say, in the OP, "I love Roy, but I love him because he struggles." I think this applies, in a different way, to Durkon too. Specifically, Durkon's passive in nature (Exhibit A: Roy's absence), and naïve, whether about Hilgya (who, bare minimum, did attempt to murder her husband and may have been complicit in the murder of the fire sylph), Miko (although misinterpreting the weather factored in), and Malack.

But note that he acknowledged and worked to fix his mistakes every single one of those times! He acknowledged that he shouldn't have "sat on his thumbs" when Roy was dead, he covered for his party to Miko when they tried to escape the cell in Azure City, and, when he finally got hard evidence that Malack was beyond redemption, he fought. He just struggles in a different way, not at being Lawful Good, but between two different interpretations of Lawful Good, which I'll call the "Celia interpretation" and the "paladin interpretation."

On the other hand, O-Chul is a little more worldly. He lacks Durkon's own passivity except when it's forced on him, whether by captivity or being assigned to reconnaissance by necessity, and when presented with a sympathetic villain that was wronged by his own people, he was still able to make the immediate judgment call that Redcloak was beyond redemption and had to be fought. He's almost like an idealized, role model version of the more potentially relatable, down-to-earth Durkon.

O-Chul could have probably taught Durkon a thing or two about seizing opportunities (like V's attack on Xykon) and being a good judge of character, but now? Durkon's been learning those lessons on his own already. O-Chul seems to have recognized Miko's flaws from the start (although it's worth remembering how he chose to honor her memory anyway by letting the knowledge of her last error in judgment die with him), and I doubt he would have taken as long as Durkon to recognize Malack's villainy, but Durkon got there eventually.

Still, there's one crucial difference between the two: Although O-Chul has some memorable friendships, he's mostly an independent character defined by his own virtues. Conversely, Durkon has many of the same virtues, but he's defined by how he relates to other people: His family, his people, and his party. I don't think that's a bad thing, and whatever his character development, I imagine that's one theme that'll always separate them.

[Sloanzilla]

Somewhat off topic, but if a paladin has a charisma score below 10, does he or she actually take a penalty to saving throws? I've always wondered if O-Chul actually had worse saving throws because he took 2 or more levels in paladin.

[The Pilgrim]

Main difference between Durkon and O-Chul so far is:
* Number of Evil Characters inspired into being Better: Durkon #2 (Belkar, Greg), O-Chul #0
* Number of Neutral Characters inspired into being Better: Durkon #0, O-Chul #2 (MitD, a certain character in his prequel short story)

O-Chul seems more able than Durkon to bring out the Good in people. Durkon seems better than O-Chul in the task of actually creating Good were there was none.

O-Chul is an inspirer, Durkon is a redeemer.

[oonker]

Somewhat off topic, but if a paladin has a charisma score below 10, does he or she actually take a penalty to saving throws? I've always wondered if O-Chul actually had worse saving throws because he took 2 or more levels in paladin.

"Divine Grace (Su)
At 2nd level, a paladin gains a bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) on all saving throws."

No. If he has a penalty, it won't negatively impact him.