Why Durkula and Vamped Stone Clan Guy acted exactly the opposite of their hosts?

[Dr.Zero]

Like: Durkula wanted to be a leader where Durkon was a follower.
Vamped Stone Clan Guy wanted to be a follower where his host was fiercely independent.
Technically there is no reason for this: as they proved, you can be an evil vampire indifferently being a follower or a leader.

I found three possible explanations.

1. Their hosts were good, the vampires like to mock, torment and disgust their good spirits. As additional proof, Ponchula had a much more relaxed relationship with her host, since her host had some evil tendencies, so Ponchula didn't need to torment that spirit. So this kinda works.

2. Vampires are born from hate, the worst day and so on. But presumably sometimes Durkon had moments of self hate regarding his attitude (we all have had at least once the thought: "If I acted differently, damned my shyness/whatever...!"). Even more stone clan guy, who presumably had some of those moments we all have about our parents, especially when they are gone ("I could have been less stubborn that time and made them happy..."). So vampires, being created by hate, absorb those moments of self hate, hating their original personality traits. Plus point: Durkula and Vamped stone clan guy seemed both really disgusted by their host's original personality. Counterpoint: Ponchula never showed that attitude.

3. Those traits are mostly random in evil spirits and they happened to be what they happened to be.

Personally I like theory number 2 more, even if Ponchula ruins it a little.

[woweedd]

Like: Durkula wanted to be a leader where Durkon was a follower.
Vamped Stone Clan Guy wanted to be a follower where his host was fiercely independent.
Technically there is no reason for this: as they proved, you can be an evil vampire indifferently being a follower or a leader.

I found three possible explanations.

1. Their hosts were good, the vampires like to mock, torment and disgust their good spirits. As additional proof, Ponchula had a much more relaxed relationship with her host, since her host had some evil tendencies, so Ponchula didn't need to torment that spirit. So this kinda works.

2. Vampires are born from hate, the worst day and so on. But presumably sometimes Durkon had moments of self hate regarding his attitude (we all have had at least once the thought: "If I acted differently, damned my shyness/whatever...!"). Even more stone clan guy, who presumably had some of those moments we all have about our parents, especially when they are gone ("I could have been less stubborn that time and made them happy..."). So vampires, being created by hate, absorb those moments of self hate, hating their original personality traits. Plus point: Durkula and Vamped stone clan guy seemed both really disgusted by their host's original personality. Counterpoint: Ponchula never showed that attitude.

3. Those traits are mostly random in evil spirits and they happened to be what they happened to be.

Personally I like theory number 2 more, even if Ponchula ruins it a little.

Vampires are born from the worst day. For Durkon, that was "I hate you all, to Hel with all of ya", Drakula is willing to make it a reality. The stone clan guy's worst moment was probably him sitting in the cold, thinking "I should go back and fix it". Thus, his vampire self is devoted to that goal.

[Fyraltari]

It's definetely 2.

Vampires form thier identity around the first moment they absorbed, and since that's the single worst memory of their host it's one where they were in conflict with what they consider right, a moment where their usual approach to things wasn't paying off. So naturally they head in the different direction. I'd say Ponchula's host had a better relationship with her vampire because she didn't repress these thoughts as much as the other two. She was more willing to consider it than either Durkon or Gontor.

Or maybe she just didn't have as traumatic a worst moment. Not knowing what was going on inside her head it's pretty much impossible to tell. But vampir spirits being "custom-made" to their hosts it makes sense that their dynamics wouldn't always be the same.

[Anymage]

If you want to justify it a bit more, remember that Hel is responsible for making the spirits of all vamped northerners. She can't break too far from the original, but she might have been inclined to make her fortuitous high priest a little more assertive than he'd otherwise have been, and her second clergyman a little more supportive.

[Precure]

I'll go with number two as well.

[Particle_Man]

So the original Curly must have been brave to the point of foolhardiness? :smile:

Come to think of it Curly’s worst day might be the day vampires killed her, damning her soul and preventing it from going to a good afterlife. If she had run away earlier she might have lived (or so she might have thought in her last living moments).

[Fyraltari]

So the original Curly must have been brave to the point of foolhardiness?
Not necessarily. Nothing shows her to be particularly fearful rather than lucky.

[Cicciograna]

Option number 4: because this way it made a better story.

(Although I really like your explaination of option 2, and I subscribe to that)

[Roland Itiative]

There's another element to it. When a vampire creates another, the new vampire becomes a thrall to the sire. Malack soon freed Durkula from this condition (edit: actually, he said he was going to, but never got to it. Durkula was freed from thralldom when Malack died), as he wanted an equal rather than an underling, but Durkula had no reason to do the same to his vampiric minions. So, Gontor's personality as a vampire could have developed in a different direction, but he wasn't given the chance to.

[Darth Paul]

If you want to justify it a bit more, remember that Hel is responsible for making the spirits of all vamped northerners.

But Durkon was vampirized by a follower of Nergal, on the Western Continent. I've often wondered about that. It seems like a jurisdictional conflict to say the least. I think any of the other gods involved would have had grounds for some kind of lawsuit. :smallconfused:

[Squire Doodad]

But Durkon was vampirized by a follower of Nergal, on the Western Continent. I've often wondered about that. It seems like a jurisdictional conflict to say the least. I think any of the other gods involved would have had grounds for some kind of lawsuit. :smallconfused:

Based on the side of the mountain Roy showed up on despite dying down South, I would say it's one of "where were you born" or "who did you worship".

[Worldsong]

But Durkon was vampirized by a follower of Nergal, on the Western Continent. I've often wondered about that. It seems like a jurisdictional conflict to say the least. I think any of the other gods involved would have had grounds for some kind of lawsuit. :smallconfused:

I believe the idea is that when it comes to matters on the Material Plane the authority goes to the pantheon which governs that area. However when it comes to souls the authority goes to whoever that soul belongs to on a spiritual level (either by virtue of which community they belonged to or their religion).

This makes the most sense (to me) because the rules were created to minimize conflict between the gods: a rule system where a pantheon claims ownership over any soul which dies within their territory is going to have some... nasty implications.

[Squire Doodad]

I believe the idea is that when it comes to matters on the Material Plane the authority goes to the pantheon which governs that area. However when it comes to souls the authority goes to whoever that soul belongs to on a spiritual level (either by virtue of which community they belonged to or their religion).

This makes the most sense (to me) because the rules were created to minimize conflict between the gods: a rule system where a pantheon claims ownership over any soul which dies within their territory is going to have some... nasty implications.

Pretty much.

[Dr.Zero]

I see that there is at least an alternative idea (Hel made them like that on purpose to work better as a team) I didn't think of. It makes sense, too.

Even if I still agree with mostly everyone (and with myself at the start) about the preference regarding theory number 2: reasoning about it, probably for me it adds another layer of depth, inner turmoil, regarding the moment of their vampirification (and regarding the way they saw themselves before it).

[hungrycrow]

Gontor and Durkon were both seriously dedicated to self-control. They had essentially made themselves into the opposites of their worst day. Other hosts like Ponchula were just a lot closer to where they were on their worst day.
If say early comic Belkar had gotten vamped, he would basically just act like early comic Belkar, because Belkar had never moved beyond his worst impulses.

[woweedd]

Gontor and Durkon were both seriously dedicated to self-control. They had essentially made themselves into the opposites of their worst day. Other hosts like like Ponchula were just a lot closer to where they were on their worst day.
If say early comic Belkar had gotten vamped, he would basically just act like early comic Belkar, because Belkar had never moved beyond his worst impulses.

Nowadays, he'd still mostly act the same, save for taking the time to wring out Mr. Scruffy's neck.