OOTS #939 - The Discussion Thread

[wyrmhole]

But Roy should know better, and this is what I'm on about with the flip between "character-in-story" logic vs. "player-at-gaming-table" logic. Roy going along with Durkula when they're surrounded by an army and they need all the help they can get mid-battle is one thing. But volunteering to have a vamp drain him every night is uncharacteristically trusting and borderline stupid-for-moving-plot-along's sake. Roy's had exactly one conversation with Durkula post-vamping. Why is he ok with taking Durkon at his word? Why wouldn't he think Durkon was as likely to drain him / make him his thrall, or otherwise turn on them? Why is Roy rationalizing having not one but two Evil capital-E party members?

Roy is dealing with the practical, tactical issues of having a Durkula because he's more comfortable with that than dealing with the fact that the friend he thought was lost (and whose loss he feels partly responsible for) has come back, only not really. He wants to see it as Durkon but with some dietary restrictions and a sun allergy, even if he knows intellectually that this isn't really true.

It certainly doesn't hurt that Roy's tactical reasoning behind wanting Durkula up and casting spells isn't wrong. And that Durkula appears to be on board with the team's goal, which is more than could be said for Belkar over most of the course, but Roy still managed to get Belkar pointed in the right direction.

Speaking of, I'd be more likely to agree Roy's behavior shows some kind of switch in the comic from story to gaming mode, if it wasn't for Belkar sitting there pointing out how this isn't really Durkon, and it's going to bite them in the ass. Because Belkar isn't wrong, either, but Roy manages to blow him off and band-aid over his concerns.

I mean if this was really players-around-a-table, then it would make absolute logical sense not to trust the player who just got handed a note by the DM that said "BTW, you're evil now". Trusting them in spite of that fact, because of previous experiences, would be role-playing. As in character and story.

Personally I like when character is handled this way, completely in-context and as the characters would deal with it rather than with some explicit "Now let us reflect on the fate that has befallen our friend."

[Meltheim]

Something something about 'mainstream' and 'arterial' and I'll show myself out.

[FrankLuke]

Way to go, Roy! Helping out a friend.

And Belkar calling himself a hipster? Didn't see that one coming.

Good job, Giant.

[Composer99]

Loved the title, and of course Belkar's lines. Thanks, Giant!

[Muenster Man]

And the justification for not immediately resurrecting him would be?

Maybe he mostly drains Belkar and pushes him off the ship? The party doesn't know he's actually dead and thinks he got fed up with being ignored. Or maybe Durkon didn't have it prepared that day? Then after waiting for him to get that spell, the party says "nah, we're probably better off without him"

Spoiler: SSaDT Spoiler

Show

There is some precedent for the last one. The 4ed Order spent about 5 hours trying to raise Belkar before stopping. Durkon: "we were [going to raise Belkar], but tha ritual takes eight hours, an' around tha fifth we started askin' ourselves wha tha heck we were doin'." While that last one isn't terribly likely, Roy does know the prophecy around Belkar and he may not want to risk something catastrophic happening that would prevent his resurrection and keeping true to the prophecy

[Amphiox]

Like snapping the neck of an unconscious victim who was offering to work.

I for one only ever argued that that act was not good, and indicative of an instinctive tendency towards evil. It remains debatable if it was truly evil on its own.

Even if it was, arguably, so is stealing a loaf of bread.

Does a bread thief warrant execution?

Also, since Roy is not a Psion, and Shattersmith's services (though demonstrated to be buyable) are not available, Roy only knows that Durkula killed a longtime known-to-be evil enemy whose Summoned ally was actively attacking the Order at the time.

The critical decision point comes when Roy sees Durkula commit or try to commit a clearly evil act that threatens innocents, which, if Roy had seen some other character do, he would have immediately intervened by entering combat.

[Liliet]

I find myself in the minority regarding what Durkon most likely is right now. However, this issue is not going to be resolved by voting at any moment

[Amphiox]

Yes, Roy. Letting the always evil Vampire drain you and trusting him to restore you after is not going to come up at an inconvenient time.

Love the writing.

Roy is very 'green', and this is a 'green' decision - to help out a friend even sacrifice for one - when there are very good lawful reasons not to do it. The Lawful decision would be to stake him now - while they can and wait around for the diamond dust for the resurrection. The Good decision is the same thing. Roy? Tries to leave a third option open.

Thanks Giant. It all makes sense how Roy comes to this decision. And yet it opens up the possibility for it all to go horribly wrong.

Without Roy - who's going to stop Durkula from vamping the whole party?

For the moment there is still Julio around. We should not discount the possibility that Roy thought far enough ahead that his offer had more than one purpose, and the second purpose was testing Durkula to see how much he might have changed. That Durkula agreed to it (remember the frequency is what Durkula needs, not what he might otherwise want, so he is agreeing to suppress his appetite and restrain his instinct to the minimum) is the first test. The second is when Durkuka actually drains Roy the first time, which will be on the ship, with Julio available as a high level backup in case something goes wrong, to see if Durkula continues to keep his word and follow through with the agreement.

Roy has previously failed to demonstrate this level of foresight, but he has also demonstrated himself capable of such foresight. Him doing it now would be a demonstration of character growth.

[Giggling Ghast]

Great punchline there.

But seriously, Roy, this is a horrible idea.

[eusticepious]

Sigh. This is what makes this strip suck sometimes. A housekeeping strip for the "I need to know every last detail" crowd with a few not-funny jokes thrown in. Strips like this are extra hard because of the publication strategy -- in a book this can be skimmed, on a DVR'd tv show you fast forward. Yuck.

It's not well-executed housekeeping either. Why do the characters trust vamp-Durkon so much is not all that clear -- I guess he's throwing in a "Thor" reference so we can be sure everything is alright. Is letting a vampire drink blood really comparable to donating blood to the sick? Are you saying Roy trusts his friends to the point of fault? Perhaps a little more reflexiveness by Roy would show that.

To me this strip shows Rich getting weary of oots. Same joke, Belkar wants to kill. Lack of movement. Uninspired innerness of characters. Ugh.

If this continues, I am going to make my willpower save and break my Oots habit.

[wyrmhole]

I for one only ever argued that that act was not good, and indicative of an instinctive tendency towards evil. It remains debatable if it was truly evil on its own.

I'd agree. I'd even say it might be justifiable as Good under some codes, but doesn't fit with what I know of Durkon and so is at the very least indicative of a change in Durkon (and it's probably not towards a more-different-Good).

Does a bread thief warrant execution?

This would be a tricky question if it was some sort of Bread Thief Demon whose inherent nature made the stealing of ever larger amounts of bread until it directly or indirectly killed people not just likely, but what everyone would expect to happen, and anything contrary would be a surprise and relief.

The critical decision point comes when Roy sees Durkula commit or try to commit a clearly evil act that threatens innocents, which, if Roy had seen some other character do, he would have immediately intervened by entering combat.

The best part is that if and when that happens, whatever Roy does in response, it'll mean he will have reason to regret his current stance.

[Ridry]

Draining people and restoring them afterward is Neutral. I don't think it's reasonable to call the restoration a good deed.

Healing broken arms would be. And healing Belkar is good as well. Durkon drained him on command from Malack.

[Dracon1us]

great strip in a subtle way...
you just got to love the good guys

[theNater]

Agreeing to the arrangement with just a handful of friends as donors, and limiting yourself to the minimum needed to stay alive (equivalent to a regular person agreeing to go on a starvation diet) and resist your instinctive urge to feed more than that, may count as north of pure neutral. Maybe not enough to be considered truly good, but more on that end of thing for sure, since he is making a willing sacrifice to do the right thing.

Let me run a hypothetical by you. Suppose the Order is marooned in a place they can't get themselves out of, due in part to the entire place being inside an antimagic field. They know help is on the way, and will arrive at a certain time. When it does, if anyone is still alive, they can get back to civilization and resurrect any deceased party members. However, the time is longer than they can go without food, and there is no food available. They decide they must resort to cannibalism; by temporarily sacrificing one party member they can make it through on a starvation diet, with two they can have full bellies until they are rescued. The party members are okay with it, on the basis that getting killed and resurrected is better than starving and staying dead.

In such a situation, does deciding to only eat one person work out to "north of pure neutral"?

[Ridry]

To me this strip shows Rich getting weary of oots. Same joke, Belkar wants to kill. Same lack of movement. Ugh.

If this continues, I am going to make my willpower save and break my Oots habit.

You can be as bored as you want... but Belkar wanting to kill something because IT'S evil and not because HE'S evil is far from same old, same old.

[Kornaki]

Remember when Roy got his special anti-undead upgrade to his sword, everyone assumed it would be great for fighting Xykon.

Imagine if it turns out that the real narrative role for the sword will be to be used in the "process" of turning Durkula back into Durkon, and it will turn out not to be useful at all against Xykon (because perhaps Xykon's final defeat will not involve straight up conflict Mano-a-undeado with Roy).

After all, we've already seen Roy try to use his sword against Xykon, and we all know how THAT turned out.

Interestingly Roy's new anti-caster feat is also absolutely perfect for fighting Durkon as well.

A lot of people complained that we already "saw" Roy beat Xykon using his sword and feat in the dream sequence, and therefore it would be narratively disappointing to see him do it again. Then many went on to complain that the feat won't be used against Xykon, and therefore the amount of time we spent seeing him learn it was a waste of time. There was also a lot of speculation on the point that Rich is in fact a good writer, and therefore it will all come together nicely.

Roy spending 1000 strips gathering the tools needed to kill Xykon, only to be forced to turn them on Durkon just before or even during the climactic battle would have lots of potential for awesome story stuff.

[Amphiox]

Another thought. Now that Durkula's got improved Listen and Alertness feats with his new template, what are the chances that he overheard Belkar wanting to stake him?

[pendell]

\

If I were writing the story, Durkon would have some pretty Evil thoughts and urges due to his new nature but use his Lawfulness to keep them in check and verify morality of what he does/encounters by his old Lawful Good code, so even though his alignment officially changed no-one might ever notice anything.

While I mostly agree with you I think you're underestimating the challenge of being a vampire.

If I were writing the story it would be the equivalent of being captured by villains and forcibly addicted to morphine, such that it is a physical necessity.

Does that mean you're doomed forever to life as an addict? No.

Does it mean you're addicted now, and if you don't get it on a regular basis you're going to go through seven kinds of hell during withdrawal? Yes, yes it does.

Does it mean you need considerably more help than a band of friends willing to sit with you as you go through this? Yes.

See .. Durkon's not a living dwarf anymore. Which means the temptation he is going to have to endure is going to be considerably more than the occasional evil thought. His body is MADE to feed on the blood of the living. It is his body's primary function. He can override that, but it's not going to be easy at all, long-term.

Possibly, being a non-monster vampire is going to take as much willpower, effort, and determination -- in a word, as much heroism -- as it would take for a normal human to be a dragon-slayer.

That's the way I'd write it, anyway.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[wyrmhole]

It's not well-executed housekeeping either. Why do the characters trust vamp-Durkon so much is not all that clear -- I guess he's throwing in a "Thor" reference so we can be sure everything is alright. Is letting a vampire drink blood really comparable to donating blood to the sick?

No, it isn't, unless you're deluding yourself that the vampire is really just your old friend but sick, and hey he's acting sort of like that's the case, but is it really -- and therein lies the story.

If this continues, I am going to make my willpower save and break my Oots habit.

Strips like this that develops character, moves the plot, all using realistic dialogue that isn't explicitly doing either of those thing, are part of what have kept the DC of my save steadily increasing.

[Ridry]

Also, since Roy is not a Psion, and Shattersmith's services (though demonstrated to be buyable) are not available, Roy only knows that Durkula killed a longtime known-to-be evil enemy whose Summoned ally was actively attacking the Order at the time.

It occurs to me... I don't know the rules that well... was killing Z the fastest way to stop the summoned ally? Cause the oots was having a REALLY bad day, and any relief you could provide in the fastest way would be a VERY good thing. In that case his worst crime was enjoying it way too much :P

[chibibar]

Nope. V was fully aware that ve was not being influenced by the souls (ve was being influenced by unearned power and a lack of maturity and foresight, plus lack of meditation for a month or so).

V realized AFTERward not during. When V had the power, killing other was ok. casting Familicide is ok. V thought V was influence by the power but upon reflection, there was zero influence. It was V own action and thus all V fault.

[Amphiox]

Let me run a hypothetical by you. Suppose the Order is marooned in a place they can't get themselves out of, due in part to the entire place being inside an antimagic field. They know help is on the way, and will arrive at a certain time. When it does, if anyone is still alive, they can get back to civilization and resurrect any deceased party members. However, the time is longer than they can go without food, and there is no food available. They decide they must resort to cannibalism; by temporarily sacrificing one party member they can make it through on a starvation diet, with two they can have full bellies until they are rescued. The party members are okay with it, on the basis that getting killed and resurrected is better than starving and staying dead.

In such a situation, does deciding to only eat one person work out to "north of pure neutral"?

My opinion is that doing so is somewhere between the middle of neutral and the bottom of good IF the designated victim consents to it, and south of neutral if the victim does not consent.

But I point out that this hypothetical is highly contrived in a manner that makes it not really applicable as analogy to the situation in the actual narrative.

[Lissibith]

I kinda like how easily the Order nominally agreed to help Durkon. I don't think it's too easy... or rather, I think it's intentionally too easy, perhaps. I think he's getting set up for a rude awakening when he reaches the Dwarven Lands.

The Order accepting him pretty readily isn't *that* surprising to me. He's been a good and loyal friend for a long while now, he's acting more or less like his old self, and we've seen more than once in this journey that Roy, at the very least, is more inclined to judge a monster based on their actions rather than their character sheet when possible. They'll probably watch him, but they also probably believe that while he's evil now, the vamping didn't turn him chaotic or anything and that helping the team he agreed to help is still likely.

Now, when the dwarves back home see him? I can totally see them having a far less sanguine (ha ha) reaction - more along the lines of "its a monster, kill it." And dealing with that... I think *that* might be Durkon's true post-vampirization test. Coming all the more unexpected because the immediate reaction to his change from the Order was so unexpectedly accepting.

Or I could be wildly guessing. Because it's fun :)

[Naomi Li]

Why do so many people seem to have the idea that "evil alignment warrants an immediate death sentence" is a reasonable course of action, much less a GOOD one?

There are plenty of people with evil alignments that are more-or-less safe to be around. One must be wary of them, avoid letting them have power over yourself and others, and quite often one must oppose their actions now and again... but there are more ways to oppose evil than killing, or even physically attacking, those that have an evil alignment.

Granted, things become a lot more complicated with the power disparities involved with adventurers, but still.

[elros]

As someone who lives in NYC, I appreciate Belkar's sentiment on hipsters.

[Amphiox]

No, it isn't, unless you're deluding yourself that the vampire is really just your old friend but sick, and hey he's acting sort of like that's the case, but is it really -- and therein lies...

How did you end up quoting me with something I never wrote?

[Kish]

It occurs to me... I don't know the rules that well... was killing Z the fastest way to stop the summoned ally? Cause the oots was having a REALLY bad day, and any relief you could provide in the fastest way would be a VERY good thing. In that case his worst crime was enjoying it way too much :P

Which is enough to show a major shift in Durkon's attitude and emotional responses.

I don't think Durkon's going to be resurrected without having done something horrible, because of the prophecy about him, which I do not think is going to be loopholed any more than Belkar's is. I really wish I did, but I don't.

[AutomatedTeller]

Was an ok comic. The punchline was good, not great.

I think Roy is just being practical. Defeating Xykon will be hard with Durkon - without him, it might be impossible. Obviously, they'd prefer a living, breathing, non-blooding drinking Durkon, but they don't have that.

I don't see a reason why Durkon is less trustworthy than Belkar.

Now, once Xykon is dead? All bets are off - world isn't in danger anymore.

[theNater]

It remains debatable if it was truly evil on its own.

Even if it was, arguably, so is stealing a loaf of bread.

Stealing is not inherently Evil. It is inherently Chaotic. Circumstances can make stealing Good or Evil, but it is neither on its own.

Healing broken arms would be. And healing Belkar is good as well. Durkon drained him on command from Malack.

Healing your own party members isn't charity, it's common sense. Remember, Haley and Belkar are almost certainly going to be fighting alongside Durkon in the near future. Having them healthy is to Durkon's advantage, and it costs him practically nothing to heal them(he gets his spells back daily, and they probably have a week before he's likely to need all his spells).

[Fish]

It is going to be that easy, at least as long as

Spoiler

Show

they are flying around in a boat that is literally made of wooden stakes.

When they get to the dwarven homeland, I expect complications to arise...

Spoiler

Show

...because the Dwarves won the battle against the trees.