So, do you feel a little sorry for Redcloak now?

[Hardcore]

Durkon have met his god, but not RC. Even {scrubbed} like me find that a little sad:(

[Fyraltari]

Suuuure...


Oh my, this is precious. Poor unloved kinslaying Redcloak.

[deltamire]

It's possible to feel sorry for someone, even if they're objectively not a good person or have done objectively evil things. Either way, it seems to me that Redcloak is being written very purposefully as sympathetic - and if not that, even just empathetic. Feeling that one is putting in a huge amount of work / sacrificing something whether that's time or funds or personal health or even, hell, your own kin just to find that the person you're sacrificing for doesn't seem to care, and then realise someone else is doing the exact same thing and is being rewarded ten times over is an incredibly common feeling and a lot of people are going to relate to it. Even if they aren't magical evil green priests who can implode people.

The main question, to me, is whether you see it as 'tragic villain realising all of his villainy is pretty much for moot for an uncaring god, possibly starting a chain of events that could lead to some form of atonement' or 'Local Goblin Experiences Consequences For Working For An Evil God Who Has Never Shown To Be Anything But, Shocked and Stunned'.

[KorvinStarmast]

Feeling that one is putting in a huge amount of work / sacrificing something whether that's time or funds or personal health or even, hell, your own kin just to find that the person you're sacrificing for doesn't seem to care, and then realise someone else is doing the exact same thing and is being rewarded ten times over is an incredibly common feeling and a lot of people are going to relate to it. Even if they aren't magical evil green priests who can implode people. yeah.

'Local Goblin Experiences Consequences For Working For An Evil God Who Has Never Shown To Be Anything But, Shocked and Stunned'. I'd have used a semi colon rather than a comman, but I vote for this one (due to having read SoD). When I look at the Azure City / Gobotopia strips after Jirix makes the presentation to the adoring crowds, Jirix seems to have more charisma, more crowd appeal (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0704.html).
Reddie is unlikeable, and Xykon rubs it in his face. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1040.html)

[deltamire]

yeah.
I'd have used a semi colon rather than a comman, but I vote for this one (due to having read SoD).
I've never fully learned how to properly implement the particular differences between the colon, the comma, and the semicolon, and I'm not about to start now!

Yes, I know that it's conjunction vs no conjunction in terms of comma vs semicolon, and I believe that a colon is used for a clause that isn't technically a sentence and is instead a list or singular word, but knowing and putting into practise are two different beasts.

[KorvinStarmast]

I've never fully learned how to properly implement the particular differences between the colon, the comma, and the semicolon, and I'm not about to start now![/color]
It took me forever to learn how to use a semicolon. My mental trick is to check and see if each clause that it separates can stand alone as a sentence or a complete thought. (The comma does not have that requirement, generally). I still have trouble with it, though, so my suggestion has maybe a 70% confidence value :smallcool: although I could have written it like this:

I still have trouble with it; my suggestion has maybe a 70% confidence value.

Or, I could have written it like this:
I still have trouble with it. My suggestion has maybe a 70% confidence value.

[understatement]

"There, there, you human-killing-enslaving person."

But seriously, look at the smilie of the thread. It's even got a :smallfrown:

[deltamire]

. . . look at the smilie of the thread. It's even got a :smallfrown:
Something I've been meaning to ask, but was too embarrassed to in case I was somehow the only person not in the know;* who, or what, assigns those wee smilies? Does Burlew assign them when he creates the page update, as that's how normal threads offer the option to have an image beside them? Randomised? Does that mean we might get a :smallbiggrin: during the darkest hour? A :smallfurious: during the tearful reunion between the Order and their loved ones?

*See, I do know how to use them! : )

[Peelee]

Something I've been meaning to ask, but was too embarrassed to in case I was somehow the only person not in the know;* who, or what, assigns those wee smilies? Does Burlew assign them when he creates the page update, as that's how normal threads offer the option to have an image beside them? Randomised? Does that mean we might get a :smallbiggrin: during the darkest hour? A :smallfurious: during the tearful reunion between the Order and their loved ones?

*See, I do know how to use them! : )

Whenever you post, you can choose a post icon (below the text box when writing a post). That will apply said icon to the title of the post (for example, I chose the lightbulb icon, since I am spreading illumination:smallwink:). When making a new thread, you can do the same thing, which will show the post icon in the thread title.

So yes, The Giant is the one who assigns them when he creates the "new comic" threads. I can't say the next part with any authority, but I would imagine that, much as how he chooses the title for the strip at the last minute based on what he thinks is appropriate, he similarly chooses a post icon smiley right before he puts the new thread up, and chooses whatever one he feels is appropriate for that strip.

[deltamire]

So yes, The Giant is the one who assigns them when he creates the "new comic" threads. I can't say the next part with any authority, but I would imagine that, much as how he chooses the title for the strip at the last minute based on what he thinks is appropriate, he similarly chooses a post icon smiley right before he puts the new thread up, and chooses whatever one he feels is appropriate for that strip.
I see. Thank you for clarifying!

[The Pilgrim]

In order to be able to speak with your God directly, you need to be Dead. Like Durkon was when he spoke with Thor. Or like Jirix was, when he supposedly meet The Dark One (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0704.html).

So, I don't feel sorry for Redcloak. Good to have kept yourself alive so long, boy!

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I feel sorry for Redcloak for a lot of things. He’s very much a character shaped by his tragic flaws and I pity him for where that’s led him. Now, considering what he’s done, I do understand why he might not have garnered a whole lot of sympathy here...

[Peelee]

In order to be able to speak with your God directly, you need to be Dead. Like Durkon was when he spoke with Thor. Or like Jirix was, when he supposedly meet The Dark One (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0704.html).

Commune (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1148.html) works, albeit rarely.

[understatement]

Does that mean we might get a :smallbiggrin: during the darkest hour? A :smallfurious: during the tearful reunion between the Order and their loved ones?


Clearly the most appropriate reaction to Xykon dying destroyed: :smallredface:

***

In more seriousness, Redcloak is on the more sympathetic side of villains; he has an entire half-of-a-book devoted to it. With the exception of Therkla and maaaybe Nale, I can't really name other prominent villains who are meant to be sympathized -- however lightly -- with.

[2D8HP]

I felt a bit sorry for Redcloak when he tells his mirror reflection "It'll all be worth it. You'll see." (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0701.html), which resembles ('cause the mirror reverses left-right the image) his brother that he killed while defending Xykon.

This strip (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1206.html)?

Not so much.

[Fincher]

Nah, I'm okay. I hope he gets his comeuppance.

[Worldsong]

Already felt sorry for him, but this thing with his god comes across more as a bit of comedy than an actual tragedy.

[jwhouk]

Well, they do say tragedy plus time equals comedy, so considering it's been 35 years...

[Wizard_Lizard]

Yeah I feel sorry for redcloak. I'm probably misguided and wrong. But I do, just a little at least. i think it's easier for me coz I have no clue what happens in the prequel books, and I'm assuming it doesn't show redcloak in the most... sympathetic light.

[Peelee]

Yeah I feel sorry for redcloak. I'm probably misguided and wrong. But I do, just a little at least. i think it's easier for me coz I have no clue what happens in the prequel books, and I'm assuming it doesn't show redcloak in the most... sympathetic light.

.... It does and doesn't. I highly regiment checking them out if you get the chance, they're fantastic.

[dancrilis]

With the exception of Therkla and maaaybe Nale, I can't really name other prominent villains who are meant to be sympathized -- however lightly -- with.

Tsukiko and Crystal (to a lesser extent) spring to mind - also maybe not-Durkon.

[Mariele]

'Local Goblin Experiences Consequences For Working For An Evil God Who Has Never Shown To Be Anything But, Shocked and Stunned'.
This made me laugh so hard. But now all I can think of is "Goblin Still Looks Like a Teenager at 50* With This Weird Trick--Doctors HATE Him!"

I felt sorry for Redcloak, a bit, in the mirror scene. This one didn't garner a whole lot of sympathy points from me.

*Guesstimate


Something I've been meaning to ask, but was too embarrassed to in case I was somehow the only person not in the know;* who, or what, assigns those wee smilies?

*See, I do know how to use them! : )
Isn't that actually the place for a colon, not a semi-colon? I just try to remember it as colon for lists, semi-colon for things that could be standalone sentences. But I've never been one who remembered rigid rules for language, I've always just gone by what "seems right". :P

[deltamire]

Isn't that actually the place for a colon, not a semi-colon?
. . . I have brought shame upon my family. Now, if you don't mind, I'm going to walk into the Irish sea. Excuse me.

Okay, I've done some research and I believe I'm correct. Semicolons iare for a non-fragment or a sentence that can stand up on its own, and colons are for a list or a set of words that can't. My second clause seems to be a full-on sentence, so I'm preeeetty sure I'm in safe territory? If I am not, I'm perfectly happy with walking back into the sea.

[Jasdoif]

Something I've been meaning to ask, but was too embarrassed to in case I was somehow the only person not in the know;* who, or what, assigns those wee smilies?

*See, I do know how to use them! : )Isn't that actually the place for a colon, not a semi-colon?Okay, I've done some research and I believe I'm correct. Semicolons iare for a non-fragment or a sentence that can stand up on its own, and colons are for a list or a set of words that can't. My second clause seems to be a full-on sentence, so I'm preeeetty sure I'm in safe territory?Since your first clause is an incomplete thought that's completed by the second clause (the "something"), I believe a colon (in its emphasizing capacity) would be more appropriate.

[deltamire]

Since your first clause is an incomplete thought that's completed by the second clause (the "something"), I believe a colon (in its emphasizing capacity) would be more appropriate.
Back into the sea I go, then!

[Psyren]

I highly doubt the story will end with any of the following:


"And the Snarl ate the world, leaving one more marker to the gods' futility floating in the Astral. The Order and Redcloak's struggles were all pointless. Ooo, new coastline! The end."
"And the Snarl ate all the gods AND the world, ending the cycle forever. The Order and Redcloak's struggles were all pointless, no more coastlines. The end."
"And so the gods locked away the Snarl forever - and in doing so, returned all the goblins to their rightful place as adventuring cannon-fodder. Redcloak's struggles were all pointless. Same coastline though! The end."

In other words - I expect that both what Redcloak is trying to do and what the Order is trying to do will have a meaningful impact. Whether either faction survives to see it is up in the air, but that's why reading is exciting.

(And evidently, the planet inside the rift is a wildcard to everybody.)

[mucat]

Yeah I feel sorry for redcloak. I'm probably misguided and wrong. But I do, just a little at least. i think it's easier for me coz I have no clue what happens in the prequel books, and I'm assuming it doesn't show redcloak in the most... sympathetic light.
It's a little more complicated than that. It's an excellent book, and it will make you root like hell for Redcloak and his fellow goblins. It will make you really invest in some impossible, Kobiyashi-Maru-style choices Redcloak has to make. And yeah, you'll curse him for choosing the path he did.

The story will really make you hate Xykon, though, in ways that the main comic never does.

[dancrilis]

The story will really make you hate Xykon, though, in ways that the main comic never does.

Xykon is awesome - and he seems to have always been awesome.


I kindof hope he still has Barky - possibly as a stitched flesh familiar with an Int approaching 20 (probably not there yet).

[KorvinStarmast]

Xykon is awesome - and he seems to have always been awesome.


I kindof hope he still has Barky - possibly as a stitched flesh familiar with an Int approaching 20 (probably not there yet).

When your familiar is smarter than you ... you may be a sorcerer. :smallbiggrin:

[Synesthesy]

I just wanted to point it out that you do not need to be dead to speak directly with your deity, as Durkula did it during his brief unlife. So it seems to be a choice of the Dark One not to directly speak to Redcloak, not something that can't be.

Still the theological reveletion passed by Jyrix should count somewhere.

[Darth Paul]

I've often felt a little sorry for Redcloak, even back to the early strips when he was just a put-upon Dilbert-equivalent to Xykon's Pointy-Haired Boss.

Is the question, "Do I feel a little more sorry for him now, after reading strip 1206?"

.... not really...

Just amused at the way he and Durkon are suddenly treating their relationships with their deities as a bromantic comedy.

[Throknor]

Just amused at the way he and Durkon are suddenly treating their relationships with their deities as a bromantic comedy.

I don't see it that far, but viewed with his previous relationship with Malack* (and possibly even the one with Hilgya) it seems to be that he relates to other clerics on a different level than non-clerics. Even the scene** of the clerics just trying to get by shows that even when they just fought each other they have something in common to keep them civil and working together. This is clearly enough of a starting place for Durkon and Redcloak to civilly discuss matters. Even for Redcloak who has barely had anyone to really talk to over the years.

And this is something Roy just doesn't understand. It's a toss-up whether Xykon or Roy will be the one to interrupt the meeting. I expect Roy, but having Redcloak secretly resurrect Durkon after Xykon kills him would be a twist...


* To be clear, Durkon didn't care too much that Malack might have been following an evil god. He just viewed the vampirism as separate and unnatural, perhaps influenced by seeing it happening. It may be that if he'd discovered it at the palace he might have rationalized it away but we'll never know for sure.

** https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1179.html

[Jasdoif]

* To be clear, Durkon didn't care too much that Malack might have been following an evil god. He just viewed the vampirism as separate and unnatural, perhaps influenced by seeing it happening. It may be that if he'd discovered it at the palace he might have rationalized it away but we'll never know for sure.On this point....


Elan is human. Tarquin is human.
Durkon is a dwarf. Malack is a vampire.

Call it what you will, but to absolutely refuse to associate or compromise with an individual based on preconceived notions of their activities by their race (or type, or affliction, or whatever you want to call it) is still racist.Yes, it is. Good thing that's not what Durkon is doing.

It is not a "preconception" that Malack was in the middle of draining Belkar's blood by force, or that Malack just admitted to benefiting from the executions that he himself helped put into place. And as I mentioned in the main discussion thread, Durkon is not JUST reacting to Malack's vampirism here; a few strips ago, he was willing to argue with Haley that Malack couldn't possibly team up with Nale to seize the Gate—a belief he has just had disproven.

If Durkon had been sitting in Malack's study drinking tea with him, recognized what was in it, and jumped up and yelled, "Yer a vampire! I must kill ye!" then that would be racism, because there would be no evidence that Malack was at all a threat to anyone, anywhere. That is not what is happening in this scene.


Really? Because in the strip right before this, Durkon immediately assumes upon learning Malack is a vampire that he goes around drinking the blood of the innocent.Malack does not know Belkar at all. He does not know that Belkar is not innocent, and Durkon knows that Malack does not know.

[Darth Paul]

I don't see it that far,...

To clear it up, I'm talking about the last 2 panels of the comic, where Durkon and RC are talking about the Dark One as if he's playing hard to get. "I try to give him his space... Maybe he doesn't want to ruin the friendship..."

[Psyren]

I just wanted to point it out that you do not need to be dead to speak directly with your deity, as Durkula did it during his brief unlife. So it seems to be a choice of the Dark One not to directly speak to Redcloak, not something that can't be.

Still the theological reveletion passed by Jyrix should count somewhere.

Greg doesn't technically disprove the "you don't need to be dead" theory :smallbiggrin:

But we can infer that, prior to dying, Durkon never had any contact with Thor that direct before - "Och, ye nev'r answer those!" (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1148.html)

[understatement]

Greg doesn't technically disprove the "you don't need to be dead" theory :smallbiggrin:

But we can infer that, prior to dying, Durkon never had any contact with Thor that direct before - "Och, ye nev'r answer those!" (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1148.html)

Maybe the TDO has never answered any of Redcloak's communes despite him being his high priest, which would be pretty unusual.

[woweedd]

I mean...I've always felt kinda sorry for him. dude's backstory is DEPRESSING. Doesn't excuse any of the things he's done, but still.

[Peelee]

Maybe the TDO has never answered any of Redcloak's communes despite him being his high priest, which would be pretty unusual.

Would it be, though? For all we know, Hel's relationship with her high priest was the unusual one (and, given the circumstances, I think that is indeed the case).

[understatement]

Would it be, though? For all we know, Hel's relationship with her high priest was the unusual one (and, given the circumstances, I think that is indeed the case).

I assume that each god told their high priest where the godsmoot was, and that Odin told his high priest of the prophecy regarding Durkon. And Redcloak does state he has spells that can request advice, not that the Dark One ever gave him any.


I mean...I've always felt kinda sorry for him. dude's backstory is DEPRESSING. Doesn't excuse any of the things he's done, but still.

The part where


where he's holding his brother and sees his sister get killed


is pretty distressing, yeah.

[Peelee]

I assume that each god told their high priest where the godsmoot was, and that Odin told his high priest of the prophecy regarding Durkon. And Redcloak does state he has spells that can request advice, not that the Dark One ever gave him any.

None of which indicate the Hel's relationship with the vampire was not unusual.

[understatement]

None of which indicate the Hel's relationship with the vampire was not unusual.

I think it'd be pretty unusual if you, a high priest, never had any of your communes answered by your god for more than three decades. That's what I assume Redcloak is saying here -- his god's end has been completely silent, and the "indirect communication" comes from being granted spells and Jirix's message.

At the very least, the other High priests appear to have a direct link of communication to their gods, even if it's brief. I don't think the Hel-HPoH is standard, due to how extensively they talk, but they still have a link of communication.

[Lexible]

I expect Roy, but having Redcloak secretly resurrect Durkon after Xykon kills him would be a twist...

You have it backward: Durkon secretly resurrecting Redcloak after Xykon (or Roy) kills him would be the twist that (a) gets Redcloak the opportunity to speak with The Dark One, and (b) to develop trust that Durkon and Thor are serious in their offer to work together with RC and TDO.

[Dion]

I assume that each god told their high priest where the godsmoot was, and that Odin told his high priest of the prophecy regarding Durkon

Sure, but that doesn’t mean any of the gods spoke directly to their high priests. It just means they communicated the information somehow*

Based on the gods behavior toward their high priests at the godsmoot, I get the impression that a direct face to face conversation with your god might be unusual, even for a high priest.

*talking dolphins. For purposes of this post they post with porpoises.

[Peelee]

Sure, but that doesn’t mean any of the gods spoke directly to their high priests. It just means they communicated the information somehow*

*talking dolphins. For purposes of this post they post with porpoises.

On purpose?

[understatement]

Sure, but that doesn’t mean any of the gods spoke directly to their high priests. It just means they communicated the information somehow*

Based on the gods behavior toward their high priests at the godsmoot, I get the impression that a direct face to face conversation with your god might be unusual, even for a high priest.

*talking dolphins. For purposes of this post they post with porpoises.

How would they porpoisefully communicate the information somehow? Based on the info in this comic I'm interpreting RC's words as that he has never gotten any sort of comm from his god at all, thus "not directly."

[Dion]

I'm interpreting RC's words as that he has never gotten any sort of comm from his god at all, thus "not directly."

TDO sent Redcloak an indirect communication through Jirix.

[Gift Jeraff]

Not really, no.

[Mariele]

How do you mean? Are we not considering giving someone a message to pass along as communication? If I give the mailman a letter to someone I've met but never actually spoken to, and they receive it, have I not communicated with them? :smallconfused:

[understatement]

TDO sent Redcloak an indirect communication through Jirix.


How do you mean? Are we not considering giving someone a message to pass along as communication? If I give the mailman a letter to someone I've met but never actually spoken to, and they receive it, have I not communicated with them? :smallconfused:

Yeah, sorry, I should have worded it better. He hasn't received any direct comm, while Durkon and various High priests have. That doesn't speak too well of the Dark One.

[Peelee]

Yeah, sorry, I should have worded it better. He hasn't received any direct comm, while Durkon and various High priests have. That doesn't speak too well of the Dark One.

Again, I don't think it does. Durkon didn't get any direct communication until he died and went to quite literally meet his maker. Various High Priests got communication in the form of "Godsmoot, location and time", which presumably every single deity gave out all at once, probably in accordance with existing protocols. Odin, a god of prophecy, gave out a prophecy. Hel communicated directly with her only priest which is a rare occurrence, to say nothing of a high-level one, who also was in position to end the world and tip the scales in her favor virtually immediately. That seems like one hell of a unique situation, and even then, it could be achieved by a Commune spell, which Durkon has tried with Thor to no avail until Thor explicitly wanted to talk to him, which Durkon would have never known about had Thor not told him when he, ya know, died. TDO could be perfectly willing to communicate with RC via Commune currently, we have no way of knowing unless RC casts it.

[Roland Itiative]

Honestly, the fact TDO has never talked to Redcloak directly kinda makes me wonder if there isn't something weird going on there. Not only is RC a high priest, rather than a regular cleric, but he has dedicated his entire life to a mission that should be of prime importance to his god. Redcloak definitely feels like something closer to a Durkula than a pre-death Durkon in terms of his position and importance of his mission to his god.

This information seemed a little too weird to just be the setup of a joke. Maybe TDO doesn't actually look like we believe he does, or some other sort of deception is going on there, requiring him to rely on more indirect methods of communication.

[Peelee]

Honestly, the fact TDO has never talked to Redcloak directly kinda makes me wonder if there isn't something weird going on there. Not only is RC a high priest, rather than a regular cleric, but he has dedicated his entire life to a mission that should be of prime importance to his god. Redcloak definitely feels like something closer to a Durkula than a pre-death Durkon in terms of his position and importance of his mission to his god.

This information seemed a little too weird to just be the setup of a joke. Maybe TDO doesn't actually look like we believe he does, or some other sort of deception is going on there, requiring him to rely on more indirect methods of communication.

Thor was there to personally meet Durkon and said, "seriously, we need to talk." And the thing he needed to talk to Durkon about was ending the infinite cycle of worlds being destroyed by capitalizing on what may be their only chance in billions of cycles, which seems like it's somewhat important. And still he didn't say anything until Durkon was in the afterlife. Similar to how TDO talked to Jirix in the afterlife. And Thor said that when Durkon is ready to proceed, he should cast Commune, which would be odd if Thor could just tell him stuff all willy-nilly.

Seems perfectly in line to me.

[Fyraltari]

I assume that each god told their high priest where the godsmoot was, and that Odin told his high priest of the prophecy regarding Durkon. And Redcloak does state he has spells that can request advice, not that the Dark One ever gave him any.

And don’t forget that Thrym told his second most powerful priest to gather troops and stop an airship at a certain mountain range. Doubt there’s any protocol for that.

Hilgya also says that Loki answered her prayers about Durkon’s location which could be interpreted as her making a successful roll on a divination spell (with Loki nudging things in her favor) but the fact that she didn’t know Durkon was a vampire but did know that some people were going to fight him and that these people were gathering at Thor’s temple make me think Loki himself did talk to her personally.

[bravelove]

Yeah it definitely tugged at my heartstrings less the god part more the 35 years part though

[rbetieh]

Im confused, I thought the Dark One isnt talking to anyone right now....At least no gods apparently.

He knew Jirix was getting a Rez, so he gave the guy some encouragement, but thats it.

I just figured that this is how he runs his shop. redcloak being jealous that his god isnt as personal as another god is just redcloak reverting back to his old Smithers self.

[dancrilis]

When your familiar is smarter than you ... you may be a sorcerer. :smallbiggrin:

In fairness for a sufficent epic level wizard your familiar will also likely be smarter then you.

[KorvinStarmast]

Still the theological reveletion passed by Jyrix should count somewhere. I think that the 'don't screw this up' message indicates that TDO is unhappy with his HP.
TDO has particular goals. He needs a superb agent/subordinate to carry them out. Reddy has subordinated himself time and again to a non-Goblin, powerful lich/sorcerer whose goals do not align very well with TDO's goals. Yes, Redcloak can convince himself that he's working from the inside and will leverage the help he needs from Xykon to (maybe) achieve TDO's objective, but I am going to guess that TDO feels that (1) style counts and (2) Reddy's style is not pleasing to him. Reddy's betrayal of his brother (and other goblins) might well bother a martially attuned deity (TDO was a very successful war leader before his ascension, if I remember the lore on him correctly). Reddy's clumsy and balky progress toward the culmination of the plan may be putting the plan in jeopardy to a greater extent than Reddy realizes, but from TDO's perspective it's probably as obvious as horns on a minotaur.
TDO is doubtless aware that The Red Cloak was passed down to Reddy not due to him being the best candidate, but in an act of desperation to keep the red-cloak-based hope going at all while the Paladins were trying to find it and kill its bearer and thus end the threat that The Red Cloak represented to their nation. (The paladins gooned it up, Gobbotopia exists, but to one extent or another Reddy is more lucky than good - Miko, through her screw up, turned his and Xykon's defeat into victory in the Azure throne room). I am pretty sure that TDO noticed that his best hope, his Red Cloak bearer, even with an epic level lich as an ally, had to rely on the enemy being a twit to keep the plan going forward. That is hardly confidence inspiring.

I mean...I've always felt kinda sorry for him. Some of his problems are self inflicted wounds, per SoD. Others of his problems are in the category "Life's tough, wear a helmet." The origin story of his clan / family being wiped out is certainly tragic.

You have it backward: Durkon secretly resurrecting Redcloak after Xykon (or Roy) kills him would be the twist that (a) gets Redcloak the opportunity to speak with The Dark One, and (b) to develop trust that Durkon and Thor are serious in their offer to work together with RC and TDO. I like where you are going with this thought. :smallsmile:

In fairness for a sufficent epic level wizard your familiar will also likely be smarter then you. If you are referrring to V, I'd say that Blackwing is more wise, perhaps, not smarter. My reference in the sorcerer joke is based on the Sorcerer being a charisma based caster, not an int based caster ... :smallcool:

[dancrilis]

If you are referrring to V, I'd say that Blackwing is more wise, perhaps, not smarter. My reference in the sorcerer joke is based on the Sorcerer being a charisma based caster, not an int based caster ... :smallcool:

It was more a comment on Epic Rules which will likely have a wizard familiar outstrip said wizard in intelligence eventually - the Wizard can stay ahead of the familiar* but they likely need to spend a fair chunk of epic feats gaining Intelligence.

*which depending on if Familiars gets HD feats they might also buy - I don't think they get HD feats though (haven't found a clear answer).

[KorvinStarmast]

It was more a comment on Epic Rules That went right over my head, then, as I never played 3.5e epic rules ... thanks. :smallcool:

[Dion]

Yeah, sorry, I should have worded it better. He hasn't received any direct comm, while Durkon and various High priests have. That doesn't speak too well of the Dark One.

To be fair, in the comic only the HPoH is actually shown to have direct communication.

For all we know, the other gods communicate by sending imps, or celestials, or Eugene.

[dancrilis]

Thor occassionally sends messages to his priests by getting drunk, putting on a blindfold and throwing lightning bolts. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0201.html)

The gods work in mysterious ways.

[Throknor]

On this point....


Not sure if you were contradicting or agreeing, but I think it mostly supports my point with the caveat that Durkon is reacting to both Malack being a vampire and working with Nale. This doesn't contradict that without those data points Durkon was treating Malack as just another cleric. In fact, it introduces the reminder that he defended Malack by earlier claiming that he(Malack) wouldn't join Nale.

The Giant does make the point that Durkon let Malack's civility mask any questions. I'm merely adding that having seen how other clerics of opposing viewpoints can interact civily and how Redcloak has no problem stopping a fight and talking that Malack being a cleric adds another subtle level to his and Durkon's interactions. By which I mean that while anyone civil might have fooled Durkon (and Tarquin effectively did) Durkon wouldn't have bonded with such a person enough to defend them or be so surprised at them turning.

And yes; it could be stated that Durkon bonded over Malack's help. I would counter that by saying I think his reactions are deeper because Malack was a cleric and not just a helpful, civil, tea-sharing, Nale-hating, dark-magic-research-librarian that turned out to be a vampire.

[Jasdoif]

Not sure if you were contradicting or agreeingMore like "this is what the authoritative source on what could have happened, had to say about a similar hypothetical situation".

[dancrilis]

More like "this is what the authoritative source on what could have happened, had to say about a similar hypothetical situation".

Which does raise the question from a while ago if whether killing vampires because they are vampires is 'racist' and evil - or whether the mechanics of vampirism holding the souls of their former occupent captive mean that such destruction (should one know about the mechanics of vampirism) is justified.

[Peelee]

Which does raise the question from a while ago if whether killing vampires because they are vampires is 'racist' and evil - or whether the mechanics of vampirism holding the souls of their former occupent captive mean that such destruction (should one know about the mechanics of vampirism) is justified.
That question was answered some time ago:

This is a baffling assertion. Malack had free will. He was an Evil person, in the same way that Redcloak is an Evil person. If he was slavishly loyal to Nergal, that was because he was a cleric, not because he was a vampire. He chose to be devoted to something larger than himself when he could have just rampaged around the continent draining people. Everything he did, every action you saw him take, was his own decision. Nothing about the metaphysics of how vampirism works changes anything.

[dancrilis]

That question was answered some time ago:

Not really what I meant - more if you come across a vampire and you know how vampirism works is is acceptable to kill the vampire to free the imprisoned soul (the vampires themselves has little to do with that - maybe a good one would choose to make the sacrifice but that would be different then someone else destorying them).

[CriticalFailure]

We know that the dark one is a new god and not as experienced with using his godly powers as the other deities. Maybe he’s secretly embarrassed about not knowing what to do as a deity.

[137beth]

Something I've been meaning to ask, but was too embarrassed to in case I was somehow the only person not in the know;* who, or what, assigns those wee smilies? Does Burlew assign them when he creates the page update, as that's how normal threads offer the option to have an image beside them? Randomised? Does that mean we might get a :smallbiggrin: during the darkest hour? A :smallfurious: during the tearful reunion between the Order and their loved ones?

*See, I do know how to use them! : )

There's an old thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?606180-Rich-Burlew-s-Smilies-II) that kept track of which smilies he used for each comic thread, but it hasn't been updated in awhile.

[FrankNorman]

Has anyone else pointed out the detail that Durkon didn't mention?
That he met his god in person, yes... in the afterlife.

Just as Jirix, the hobgoblin cleric that Redcloak left in charge of Azure City Gobbotopia, reported meeting his god during his brief visit to the hobgoblin afterlife.

It's not really as unique as Redcloak is being allowed to think.

[RatElemental]

Aw man, I missed a good time to reference the oatmeal, what with all that semi-colon talk.

As for the vampire thing, theoretically it might be possible to free the soul in a way other than killing the vampire. There is precedent for magic that can affect the disposition of a soul, and vampirism is an example of it in the first place. Not likely an avenue of research that will bear much fruit, though a vampire who becomes good after a few centuries of self reflection and atonement might undertake it just to free the soul trapped within them as part of said atonement. I think it'd make a good story anyway.

[Fyraltari]

Has anyone else pointed out the detail that Durkon didn't mention?
That he met his god in person, yes... in the afterlife.
That might have come up, yes.


To be fair, Durkon -- you WERE dead at the time of being assigned said mission...


I mean, Durkon was dead at the time. That ought to count for something...


My guess is that the next comic quickly discloses that he died and then met Thor. Given the message from another who died and came back {Don’t mess this up) I wonder if Redcloak will “die” to discuss it with his god. I’m guessing no but am interested to see how he puts it to his god.


Oh, poor Redcloak. I wonder if a chat with his god is what he needs to break with Xykon? Of course, it means dying.


Poor Redcloak...
Even Jirix got further on that count.
Huh. Jirix. Durkon. HPoH.
Neither of them was alive when talking to their deity.
Maybe that is the problem.


I wonder why Durkon didn't say he was dead? Red Cloak knows his sidekick hobgoblin cleric spoke with the Dark One while he was dead... and delivered "don't screw up, no pressure though" message. Red Cloak could relate to the special circumstances.


For Thor's sake Durkon, throw the goblin a bone and tell him you had to die before your god would talk to you.



It was the one time! It's not like he made a habit of it or something.


"Also, I had ta be dead fer a bit."
"Oh, yeah, that'd do it."

Geez Durkon, quit neg'ing Redcloak and exploiting his insecurities.

[Worldsong]

Aw man, I missed a good time to reference the oatmeal, what with all that semi-colon talk.

As for the vampire thing, theoretically it might be possible to free the soul in a way other than killing the vampire. There is precedent for magic that can affect the disposition of a soul, and vampirism is an example of it in the first place. Not likely an avenue of research that will bear much fruit, though a vampire who becomes good after a few centuries of self reflection and atonement might undertake it just to free the soul trapped within them as part of said atonement. I think it'd make a good story anyway.

Main issue I see with that is Durkon's mentioning how the negative energy inside of the vampire is trying to turn the vampire back into his evil self after having been Durkon'd. It came across to me as if the only reason his plan worked in the first place is because he used a big wave of being Lawful Good to forcefully overcome the negative energy for a short while.

Granted Rich apparently believes that vampires have enough independence and freedom that they can be judged for their Evil behaviour so maybe I'm focusing too much on a single line someone said about negative energy in the comic.

[B. Dandelion]

We haven't known much about the rules of communication between gods and clerics before now, or about how common they are. The cue I get from 1206 is that while in-person communication is rare and requires death, direct communication is something most clerics (or at least high priests) have had with their gods at some point. Maybe not as often as they'd like, ("ye never answer that spell!" might be slightly hyperbolic) but it does happen. Durkon seems legitimately surprised that Redcloak's never spoken to his god, I don't think that's because he figured Redcloak must have died at some point.

Redcloak may well have surmised already that Durkon must have died in order to meet Thor in person. He knows such a thing is possible. He's just sad to note the huge disparity in "have spoken in-person" versus "have never spoken directly at all".

[Psyren]

Which does raise the question from a while ago if whether killing vampires because they are vampires is 'racist' and evil - or whether the mechanics of vampirism holding the souls of their former occupent captive mean that such destruction (should one know about the mechanics of vampirism) is justified.

So - "is killing vampires morally justified?"

Without giving my own personal views on the subject, various OotS (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0968.html) faiths (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1093.html) clearly think so.

[dancrilis]

So - "is killing vampires morally justified?"


Less about morally justified and more a continuation of a discussion some time ago which Jasdoif summed up relating to destruction of vampires on a good / evil scale.

The Giant's responces above (quoted in this topic) were before we knew how vampires operated I was wondering if the additional information changes the calculus he may have given.



various OotS (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0968.html) faiths (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1093.html) clearly think so.
One of those faiths had recently been attacked and so were likely reasoned in defending themselves against intruders, the other we don't know who they represent, Veldrina didn't seem to care - and the Godsmoot clerics seemed split on helping or harming them, mostly along voting lines - possible with Sunna's High Priest acting as the only exception, and the only one who seemed to care about the vampire issue - knowledge or not of how it worked.

I would be unsure about if the faiths in OOTS have a clear stance.

[Dion]

I’d prefer not to conflate “moral justification” with “clerics following the desire of their gods”.

Because down that path leads to questions like “since Dwarven Clerics of Thor want to kill trees, and Thor is good, does that make trees evil?”

Or, “Since Dvalin will never make a decision, and Dvalin is Lawful, does that make decisions chaotic?”

[Fyraltari]

I am willing to bet that the churches of Nergal, Hel and whoever’s in charge of undeath in the South (Rat?) frown on the wanton killing of vampires.

[Psyren]

Less about morally justified and more a continuation of a discussion some time ago which Jasdoif summed up relating to destruction of vampires on a good / evil scale.

The Giant's responces above (quoted in this topic) were before we knew how vampires operated I was wondering if the additional information changes the calculus he may have given.

I don't think we have enough information to conclude any differently. Yes we know more about how vampires work - but the only post-Malack examples we've seen of a vampire who revealed their true motivations were also evil clerics, so the Giant's comments about Malack's motivations (and the morality of destroying him) still stand.

Could a non-cleric vampire, in theory, either (a) actively seek to get itself destroyed and free the mortal spirit trapped inside, or (b) seek to unlive ethically without harming innocents but being at peace with its new existence? We can only speculate, because we have no non-cleric vampires (or non-thralls-of-cleric-vampires) to use as examples.

[Peelee]

Not really what I meant - more if you come across a vampire and you know how vampirism works is is acceptable to kill the vampire to free the imprisoned soul (the vampires themselves has little to do with that - maybe a good one would choose to make the sacrifice but that would be different then someone else destorying them).

I nearly bolded it, but decided against. The last sentence really strikes it home, though.
Nothing about the metaphysics of how vampirism works changes anything.

[dancrilis]

I nearly bolded it, but decided against. The last sentence really strikes it home, though.

Which I guess answers that, thanks - so presumedly it would not be considered good behaviour to kill someone who is keeping another person imprisoned in order to free said person (terms and condition likely apply).

[Jasdoif]

Less about morally justified and more a continuation of a discussion some time ago which Jasdoif summed up relating to destruction of vampires on a good / evil scale.

The Giant's responces above (quoted in this topic) were before we knew how vampires operated I was wondering if the additional information changes the calculus he may have given.What's sad is that I found that post because I remembered mentioning popcorn with gouda.

But no, actually; the referenced quotes by the Giant predate the comic that discussion thread was about. Later clarifying (https://mobile.twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/963524080484933632) comments (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/963533605002797056) pretty much reinforce the tone: The vampire is a distinct person, with free will of their own, who didn't exist to able to be responsible for their creation. So killing a vampire solely to free the soul (that they have no say in imprisoning) is destroying a person for the sake of an already dead person, purely due to circumstances of their "birth"...which really doesn't seem like it should have a categorical position. (Which I suspect is why antagonist vampires almost always have evil plans, and/or some sort of predatory compulsion that turns them into mindless killers if they don't do willful killing; to hide these sorts of questions behind more blatant reasons to oppose them)

[137beth]

Main issue I see with that is Durkon's mentioning how the negative energy inside of the vampire is trying to turn the vampire back into his evil self after having been Durkon'd. It came across to me as if the only reason his plan worked in the first place is because he used a big wave of being Lawful Good to forcefully overcome the negative energy for a short while.

Granted Rich apparently believes that vampires have enough independence and freedom that they can be judged for their Evil behaviour so maybe I'm focusing too much on a single line someone said about negative energy in the comic.

I interpreted that line differently. I thought it meant that "the negative energy" is HPoH, so the vampire was trying to take back over Durkon's body. That would be very different than a vampire who chose to be good of their own free will (and not because they were controlled by their host).

[Tvtyrant]

It's hard not to feel sorry for someone railing against a system that was designed to murder you. RC and the DO are also both locked into the worst moment of their lives; RC is magically stuck as a teenager who just saw his family get massacred and the DO died on the day he was betrayed by all of the other races' leaders. He is the incarnation of a man seeking revenge.

If anything the DO might be hiding from RC so the latter doesn't realize how broken his God is.

[Worldsong]

I interpreted that line differently. I thought it meant that "the negative energy" is HPoH, so the vampire was trying to take back over Durkon's body. That would be very different than a vampire who chose to be good of their own free will (and not because they were controlled by their host).

The problem I have with that interpretation is that it implies that to some extent Durkon forcing all his memories upon the vampire resulted in him creating a new entity with the vampire merely being pushed into the background, when Durkon's message there was that if the vampire wasn't careful accepting all of Durkon's memories he would become Durkon. I interpreted it as conversion rather than hijacking.

Of course what is possible is that even with the negative energy pushing vampires towards being Evil it's still possible for them to become Good... they just have a handicap. Overcoming your selfish/malicious tendencies is often treated as part of the struggle of being/becoming a good person after all.

[LadyEowyn]

The way a vampire originates (an evil spirit placed in a person’s dead body which begins its unlife by absorbing the memories of the worst point in that person’s life, with no good memories for context) makes it very unlikely that any vampire would be good, or even neutral.

[Fyraltari]

The way a vampire originates (an evil spirit placed in a person’s dead body which begins its unlife by absorbing the memories of the worst point in that person’s life, with no good memories for context) makes it very unlikely that any vampire would be good, or even neutral.

Unlikely is not impossible. Case in point, vampire Durkon was good during the very last moments of his unlife, something he achieved through extraordinary circumstances.

Malack, despite being a vampire, truly loved the spawns Nale killed, meaning he was capable of Good thoughts. He was still grade-A evil but that means that, with time, he could have changed and become a better person much like any member of any « usually evil » race.

The Giant did say that there might be good vampires on the stick planet somewhere, but he doesn’t need them for this story, so they don’t show up.

[hroþila]

Vampires are explicitly free-willed. That term is meaningless if it doesn't include the theoretical possibility of being Good.

(Personally I choose to believe that Durkon acted correctly out of caution when he hurried up just in case the negative energy reasserted itself, but also that there was no immediate danger of that happening, because I think the alternative would pretty much refute vampire free will, which is well-established both within the comic and outside of it. Since my interpretation is not explicitly at odds with the text, I prefer it)

[LadyEowyn]

Yes, it’s possible. I think “existence requires imprisoning the soul of the body’s original owner and denying it passage to the afterlife” would also negatively impact alignment.

But I agree that it is possible for a vampire to be non-evil. I wasn’t suggesting that they should be killed on sight.

(Theoretically, I think it would be possible to have a free-willed sapient being that could not be Good while continuing to live - if, for example, you had someone who had to kill another sapient being every day in order to continue living - no exceptions, no outs. For such a being, the choice to be Good would connote the choice to accept death.

However, Doylistically, I can’t see a good reason for an author to invent that. In general, I’m opposed to the invention of species/classes of beings that are inherently evil, because it’s usually just a way of making it okay for protagonists to kill wantonly.)

[Fyraltari]

Yes, it’s possible. I think “existence requires imprisoning the soul of the body’s original owner and denying it passage to the afterlife” would also negatively impact alignment.

Why? They had no choice in the matter.

[Peelee]

Why? They had no choice in the matter.

Aye, that's a biggie.

[Fyraltari]

Aye, that's a biggie.

Especially for this one (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1015.html)

[Darth Paul]

Yes, it’s possible. I think “existence requires imprisoning the soul of the body’s original owner and denying it passage to the afterlife” would also negatively impact alignment.

But I agree that it is possible for a vampire to be non-evil. I wasn’t suggesting that they should be killed on sight.


Except the vampires in Twilight. And Vampire Diaries. And any vampire that isn't Spike. (Or maybe Angel, but only on his own series.) They should be killed on sight. They cause way more drama than they're worth. Safest to just stake 'em first thing and get it over with.

[Psyren]

Yes, it’s possible. I think “existence requires imprisoning the soul of the body’s original owner and denying it passage to the afterlife” would also negatively impact alignment.

You're assuming the original owner is truly a hostage (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1112.html) in all cases too.

[Fyraltari]

Except the vampires in Twilight. And Vampire Diaries. And any vampire that isn't Spike. (Or maybe Angel, but only on his own series.) They should be killed on sight. They cause way more drama than they're worth. Safest to just stake 'em first thing and get it over with.
Hey, let people enjoy what they enjoy.

You're assuming the original owner is truly a hostage (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1112.html) in all cases too.
Wether or not one enjoy the situation has no bearing on wether or not one is a prisoner. It’s true that they aren’t hostages, though, the vampires have no intention of releasing their hosts in exchange for concessions.

[LadyEowyn]

I’m always curious about what afterlife that vampire’s host would go to. If you’re Neutral-to-Good your whole life (not because you really want to be, but because you’re supposed to be), and then, after being killed and having minimal-to-no capacity to influence the vampiric spirit in your body, you passively enjoy its actions...what would that mean for alignment? Would enjoying Evil activities that you have no capacity to prevent shift the dial?

[Worldsong]

I’m always curious about what afterlife that vampire’s host would go to. If you’re Neutral-to-Good your whole life (not because you really want to be, but because you’re supposed to be), and then, after being killed and having minimal-to-no capacity to influence the vampiric spirit in your body, you passively enjoy its actions...what would that mean for alignment? Would enjoying Evil activities that you have no capacity to prevent shift the dial?

I'm reminded of Paarthurnax from Skyrim who asks you whether it's more moral to be an innately good person to whom altruism comes naturally, or to be born with strong selfish traits but to overcome those in the pursuit of good.

I'd guess that for Ponchina's host she'd still be considered Good in the end, although maybe not if she'd had the opportunity to help her vampire commit atrocities with suggestions and ideas.

[Jasdoif]

However, Doylistically, I can’t see a good reason for an author to invent that.It'd be the same as establishing any hard restriction: you would do so when your story's core question is about something derived from it, and the story would be undercut if that question was invalidated.

From the external "are the people you knew who are now a constant danger to those around them, still 'the people you knew'?", to the internal "how much is defiance of your nature worth in the cost to others?", to the expansive "if the chances of resistance change from 'impossible' to 'nigh impossible', are the world's adaptions now worse than the thing they were intended to prevent?", to the subversive "what if the truth might not be as true as expected?"; there are all sorts of questions that (depending on how the story is intended to answer them) could benefit from at least starting from a point of objective truth.

[KorvinStarmast]

Except the vampires in Twilight. And Vampire Diaries. And any vampire that isn't Spike. (Or maybe Angel, but only on his own series.) They should be killed on sight. They cause way more drama than they're worth. Safest to just stake 'em first thing and get it over with. it's the only way to be sure. :smallwink:
The vampires in Love at First Bite might be an exception ...

[Darth Paul]

it's the only way to be sure. :smallwink:


I think that's nuking the entire site from orbit? A little more extreme, but along similar lines.

[RatElemental]

As I've mentioned before, it might be possible to free the soul fro ma vampire in a way other than killing them. Researching how to do that being a thing a good vampire might pursue. Once you establish souls can be affected by magic, then you open the door to different magic affecting them in different ways.

For a hypothetical being that has a physiological need to kill sapient beings, specifically, I'm having trouble imagining that. It would have to be an intrinsic part of them that can't be overcome in any way, not even changing them into a different form. And their diet would have to be intrinsically impossible to get anywhere else, or if you did get it anywhere else it would have to be effectively morally the same, such as needing to eat the soul itself.

[Psyren]

Wether or not one enjoy the situation has no bearing on wether or not one is a prisoner.

I didn't say it did. I was responding to "negatively impacts alignment."

[thereaper]

How has the thread gone on this long without anyone pointing out that Durkon has spoken to Thor before his death (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0040.html)?

[Psyren]

How has the thread gone on this long without anyone pointing out that Durkon has spoken to Thor before his death (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0040.html)?

And you *almost* didn't bring that up, but here we are. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1140.html)

[Fyraltari]

I didn't say it did. I was responding to "negatively impacts alignment."
And I was responding to the notion that not every host is "truly a hostage".





You're assuming the original owner is truly a hostage (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1112.html) in all cases too.

Wether or not one enjoy the situation has no bearing on wether or not one is a prisoner. It’s true that they aren’t hostages, though, the vampires have no intention of releasing their hosts in exchange for concessions.

[ijuinkun]

I’m always curious about what afterlife that vampire’s host would go to. If you’re Neutral-to-Good your whole life (not because you really want to be, but because you’re supposed to be), and then, after being killed and having minimal-to-no capacity to influence the vampiric spirit in your body, you passively enjoy its actions...what would that mean for alignment? Would enjoying Evil activities that you have no capacity to prevent shift the dial?

Within OOTS it does not seem as though they include posthumous actions when judging a soul's alignment.