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

[dancrilis]

Thor occassionally sends messages to his priests by getting drunk, putting on a blindfold and throwing lightning bolts.

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 agreeing

More 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 during the darkest hour? A during the tearful reunion between the Order and their loved ones?

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

There's an old thread 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.

Spoiler: Heh

Show

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.

Spoiler

Show

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 faiths 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 faiths 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 comments 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]

Spoiler: SoD spoilers

Show

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.