Durkon's death within (D&D) context

[Zerter]

Durkon wanted to die and did. Evidence for this is in what he said and in what he did, consider:

He went after Belkar alone. This is what players do when they don't like their character anymore. This is relevant because all OoTS characters are genre-savvy to some extent.

The DM offered him a easy way out. He had to activally seek out his death. This is DM code for 'don' take this encounter that will kill you'. Relevant.

Durkon shows on the one hand he fully knows the vampiric powers of Malack, but yet shows ineffective tactics or grasp of strategy. This is evident in him using heal before it would finish Malack off, in Durkon going for a physical encounter with a high level vampire, but especially:

Durkon admits he knew he could never have truly harmed Malack, but apparantly decided to risk his own life and that of Belkar (and by extent that of the universe) even though the best case scenario would have been a draw. There was no potential reward in the fight for him whatsoever. At least not on the material plane. Yet now he is a vampire and his soul will likely travel to a sweet afterlife.

Durkon got what he wanted, but if judged properly that afterlife will be Lawful Neutral.

[Cizak]

Oots is not a DnD campaign.

And no, Durkon did not want to die.

[Tingel]

There are no players behind the characters, thus your reasoning is unsound. There is no gamemaster either.

How do you figure that Durkon's last actions were non-good? He risked his own life trying to defeat a monster, was unwilling to compromise his ideals, and worried about the well-being of his friends and pleaded for their lives instead of his own. I say if his death deserves any alignment qualifier it is without a doubt Lawful Good.

[Winter]

I think Durkon was ready to give his life for the right cause. Fighting a Vampire and defending one of the group (even if it is Belkar) is a good cause.

What he did not expect is that he might come back just as what he died for to fight.

[DoctorWhooves]

I feel like some people have never heard of the concept of alternative interpretations of literature.

[Chantelune]

Mmmh, even going by you're idea of this being a d&d game, I disagree with you.

Durkon went alone : well, Roy was busy giving Haley a lift while she's busy disarming really dangerous traps. V is missing. Elan ? Too random in usefulness. And Durkon is a cleric, a class that's among the best alone (healing, access to heavy armor, decent attack modifiers, offensives and defensives spells). Plus, the LG just retreated, it was not unreasonable to think that he wouldn't met anything more dangerous than a few random encounter and given that Girard seemed to rely more on illusion than anything else...

An easy way out : That GM would clearly not understand Durkon's character if that was his "easy way out". A LG cleric dwarf that stated his hatred for undead and his loyalty to the party, even its less likeable members ? You don't put a vampire eating one of his party member in front of him if you want him to retreat thinking "this is too much for me". I was dissatisfied with Durkon not even contemplating any compromise, but it was completely in character for him. A good GM would have expect no less from this situation.

Lack of strategy : Durkon shows his best strategic side on this battle. He managed to lure Malack in for a heal, managed to get him to rant so he would find him and he was under MDW with no way to know that it could be dispelled with a simple word. He made a few mistakes, yes, but asking Malack to surrender was again in character. If there wasn't the backdoor to bypass MDW, even being grappled by Malack wouldn't be such an issue, Malack himself stated that the clock was ticking in Durkon's favor, preventing him to just wait for MDW to fade off. Without the bypass, an ally would probably came in and saved Durkon before MDW fades.

He knew he couldn't really hurt Malack : Irrelevant, as Durkon is a LG cleric who wouldn't abandon a party member. His objective here was to save Belkar. He probably wanted to stall until V or someone else find him. He could have fled, yes, but that meant leaving Belkar behind and Durkon would never do such a thing. Being able to hurt Malack at this point probably never accounted in his decision. Plus, he was confident in MDW with every reason to do so as Malack already failed to dispel it with his spells.

So no, Durkon had no reason to think that he would die before any of his allies to show up and if there was a GM trying to tell him "don't fight or you die", he did a poor job at this.

[Zerter]

Oots is not a DnD campaign.

And no, Durkon did not want to die.

And nowhere does it say it is. What is true however is that within OoTS Durkon was a PC. What is also true is that the PCs in OoTS are aware of the rules of their universe. Thus it is also true that if it was incredibly evident to any player what the results of his actions would be, it was evident to him.

And if you disagree, the strongest evidence comes outside of the context of D&D. Durkon clearly states he knew he could not truly hurt Malack, meaning there is no potential upside in the fight. Yet he chose to challenge him anyway, likely resulting in his death.

Meaning that yes, Durkon wanted to die.

Without the bypass, an ally would probably came in and saved Durkon before MDW fades.

Hold Person would have lasted a minute at best. The bypass was to help develop Malack as a character, Durkon was doomed either way.

He knew he couldn't really hurt Malack : Irrelevant, as Durkon is a LG cleric who wouldn't abandon a party member. His objective here was to save Belkar.

I would read the comic again. Malack was perfectly happy to let Durkon leave with Belkar. Meaning that if his objective was to save Belkar as you say it was he went the other way, meaning that following your logic, Durkon went against his alignment.

[Nephrahim]

Durkon died fighting an Evil vampire. He could not leave him alone, since as he stated, he's a danger to the entire continent. He tried to fight him, as best he could, but in the end he lost. His attempt to force him to his Coffin was a sound strategy, since it would have meant he would have been out of the fight for a while which would have left the Linear guild without their divine spellcaster.

It's been established that people are not judged in afterlife for how effective or smart they are at trying to kill evil, that they were trying is what counts. Durkon has not performed a single evil act, and the worst that could be said about him is he was unwilling to negotiate with a Vampire (Which I doubt a Diva will care about) and that he tried to fight a hopeless battle. He didn't seek out his death any more then Roy did back when he was killed.

Oh, and like said, it's not a D&D campeign. There's no DM.

[Zerter]

He didn't seek out his death any more then Roy did back when he was killed.

Actually, if you re-read the comic you'll notice that Xykon gave Roy a number of opportunities to withdraw. Meaning that the universe send him a signal like it did Durkon, in accordance with their status as PCs. I would not argue that Roy commited suicide since the context was different, but thanks for pointing out the two are in fact similiar.

[Boogastreehouse]

I think it looks better with a little space above and below...

Durkon shows on the one hand he fully knows the vampiric powers of Malack, but yet shows ineffective tactics or grasp of strategy.

Allow me to quote a being of pure Law and Good: "True, he could have gone about it more efficiently, But we don't penalize people for ineffectiveness. He was doing what he thought was best, to the limit of his abilities—including his ability to judge what was best."


I think it looks better with a little space above and below...

[Nephrahim]

Actually, if you re-read the comic you'll notice that Xykon gave Roy a number of opportunities to withdraw. Meaning that the universe send him a signal like it did Durkon, in accordance with their status as PCs. I would not argue that Roy commited suicide since the context was different, but thanks for pointing out the two are in fact similiar.

That's my point. They're the exact same situation, and we know that Roy was judged to be Lawful good, so I don't see how this would be any different.

[Zerter]

Allow me to quote a being of pure Law and Good: "True, he could have gone about it more efficiently, But we don't penalize people for ineffectiveness. He was doing what he thought was best, to the limit of his abilities—including his ability to judge what was best."

Exactly, thanks for pointing to another comic that argues the point for me. Durkon will go to a Lawful Good afterlife because he played his cards right. He died a heroic death. He knew that would be the result of his otherwise useless suicide.

[hamishspence]

That's the thing- "Durkon used ineffective tactics" is not the same thing as "Durkon committed suicide"

[Chantelune]

Actually, if you re-read the comic you'll notice that Xykon gave Roy a number of opportunities to withdraw. Meaning that the universe send him a signal like it did Durkon, in accordance with their status as PCs. I would not argue that Roy commited suicide since the context was different, but thanks for pointing out the two are in fact similiar.

Roy and Durkon are very much alike, yes. Espacially in the fact that they don't retreat when lives are at stakes. Roy explained it quite clearly when Xykon offered him a chance to retreat : he couldn't bear the thought of letting Xykon kill countless innocent people just so he would save his own life.

Both he and Durkon were ready to make the sacrifice. doesn't mean they wanted to die. And Durkon had better chances than Roy. Without the backdoor, that fight might have ended better for Durkon.

[Zerter]

Both he and Durkon were ready to make the sacrifice. doesn't mean they wanted to die. And Durkon had better chances than Roy. Without the backdoor, that fight might have ended better for Durkon.

Well, no. Without the backdoor Malack could have waited less than a minute for Belkar to come and finish Durkon off. But even following your logic, suppose he would have defeated Malack (which he could have done if he had gone about it smarter), what then? Malack would still be active, unharmed and as much a threat to him as before the fight. Tell me, what lives were at stake exactly except those put at stake by Durkon?

[Boogastreehouse]

I think it looks better with a little space above and below...

Durkon got what he wanted, but if judged properly that afterlife will be Lawful Neutral.

Exactly, thanks for pointing to another comic that argues the point for me. Durkon will go to a Lawful Good afterlife because he played his cards right. He died a heroic death. He knew that would be the result of his otherwise useless suicide.

...um...


I think it looks better with a little space above and below...

[Nephrahim]

Well, no. Without the backdoor Malack could have waited less than a minute for Belkar to come and finish Durkon off. But even following your logic, suppose he would have defeated Malack (which he could have done if he had gone about it smarter), what then? Malack would still be active, unharmed and as much a threat to him as before the fight. Tell me, what lives were at stake exactly except those put at stake by Durkon?

The lives of the party which would have to fight Malack anyway? He couldn't run at that point, since he would be abandoning Belkar. If he could have even escaped by running, which is doubtful.

[Boogastreehouse]

I think it looks better with a little space above and below...

Well, no. Without the backdoor Malack could have waited less than a minute for Belkar to come and finish Durkon off. But even following your logic, suppose he would have defeated Malack (which he could have done if he had gone about it smarter), what then? Malack would still be active, unharmed and as much a threat to him as before the fight. Tell me, what lives were at stake exactly except those put at stake by Durkon?

If Durkon could drive off Malack, he would prevent him from turning Belkar into a vampire. Durkon risked his life to try and keep his team mate alive and to prevent the Linear Guild from gaining another member.


ninja'd...
I think it looks better with a little space above and below...

[Chantelune]

Well, no. Without the backdoor Malack could have waited less than a minute for Belkar to come and finish Durkon off. But even following your logic, suppose he would have defeated Malack (which he could have done if he had gone about it smarter), what then? Malack would still be active, unharmed and as much a threat to him as before the fight. Tell me, what lives were at stake exactly except those put at stake by Durkon?

A lot of things might have happened in a minute, starting by Roy coming to see what happened with Durkon and Belkar or V stumbling there. Malack knew he had no time to waste, or why would he not just do that and wait for Belkar to move again ?

As for the stake : Belkar's live. (Plus every life that Malack planned to sacrifice when he rises to power. But Durkon didn't know that at first.) Durkon is just that kind of guy : he won't walk away in the face of evil. Sure, he failed, but the point is given D's character, there where no way for him to accept retreat. He was still confident in him having a winning chance given he asked Malack "What now, I can't hurt you and I'm still under MDW" when grappled. Not something you say when you think you're doomed.

[deworde]

Exactly, thanks for pointing to another comic that argues the point for me. Durkon will go to a Lawful Good afterlife because he played his cards right. He died a heroic death. He knew that would be the result of his otherwise useless suicide.

We are now down the rabbit latrine of "If you know there's a heaven, all good actions become selfish."
According to Durkon's Dwarven value system, retreat would have been a dishonourable and irresponsible act. He'd have left a dangerous monster to roam free in order to save the lives of warriors, for whom death in battle is not something to be feared. And his last act was to try and protect his friends.
At the end of the day, he died fulfilling his duty, just like a dwarf.
That doesn't make it Neutral, it just makes it less effective. Being good doesn't mean you have to be perfect. His death wasn't selfish, even if by tactical standards, it was foolish.

[Rui]

Remember that when Durkon entered melee he though his mass death ward will give him the victory over a vampire focused on death spells with no weapons at all. Seems like an easy battle.

[Nephrahim]

And forcing Malack to his coffin is not nothing. IT would take him out of the battle for at least an hour, possibly more, and in fact could kill him if his coffin is far enough away (Unlikely, but possible)

[SowZ]

I will say right now that if Durkon deserves/receives a Lawful Neutral afterlife, I will eat my copy of OTOOPCs.

[Cizak]

And if you disagree, the strongest evidence comes outside of the context of D&D. Durkon clearly states he knew he could not truly hurt Malack, meaning there is no potential upside in the fight. Yet he chose to challenge him anyway, likely resulting in his death.

Meaning that yes, Durkon wanted to die.

Um... no. What Durkon clearly states is that he can still aim to send Malack back to his coffin. That's the upside of the fight, since it would've sent Malack away from the pyramid. He thought he had a fool-proof shield against Malack's most dangerous abilities, and if you look closely you'll notice Malack takes damage from Durkon's hammer, meaning Durkon actually stood a small chance. As others have pointed out, just because you don't use the best tactics possible doesn't mean you long for death.

[Zerter]

Okay, I'm at school now and I don't have time to reply to everyone individually until later. I do see a recurring argument for fighting Malack which is that Belkar's life was at stake. This is simply not true.

[The Giant]

What I love is the insistence that there must be a player behind Durkon's actions, but the complete inability to imagine that player as anything but an emotionally vacant strategy machine whose sole consideration must be maximum efficiency.

It's not a game, it's a story. But even if it were a game, not everyone plays it that way.

EDIT: In case I need to be really clear: No, of course Durkon did not want to die.

[Morph Bark]

Even if there were players behind the character (there aren't), the player could still be going with what they feel their character would do, not just have "I don't like him anymore, let's have him die" attitude. Some players might, not all, and from what we've seen of Durkon so far, I doubt that - if he had a player - that his player would have such an attitude about this.

[theinsulabot]

Durkon was being selfish and morally bankrupt when he quite literally gave his life and quite possibly imperiled his very soul* trying to protect a team mate from a fate worse then death.

Congratulations, you just single handedly won the award for the absolutely worst character analysis...and understanding...I have ever read during my long time here on these boards.

*I don't know if the evil one does as a vampire effects the fate of one's soul or if vamp durkon represents a new creature and durkon will go to the afterlife he deserves after dying in battle.

[Edhelras]

What I love is the insistence that there must be a player behind Durkon's actions, but the complete inability to imagine that player as anything but an emotionally vacant strategy machine whose sole consideration must be maximum efficiency.

It's not a game, it's a story. But even if it were a game, not everyone plays it that way.

EDIT: In case I need to be really clear: No, of course Durkon did not want to die.

Thank you! Rich. As for me, I do indeed feel that there's a player behind Durkon, and I can really sympathesize with that player as well - and I thought he played it brilliantly. DnD is a role-playing game and Durkon's player played him perfectly in-character, according to how he has chosen to play the Durkon character previously.

Durkon's player was the one of the 5 players who really should understand that "someone has to go look for Belkar, even though he's an annoying brat", because Durkon has been the one to fight prejudice and accept people as who they are (as long as they're not tree-huggers...) throughout the campaign. As a LG character, opportunities for self-sacrifice should be what Durkon's player was actively looking for, even though that's mostly the "self-" part of it ("someone's gotta do it, and that someone is me") rather than the "sacrifice" part of it - only a emo-psycho-style player would actively seek the destruction of his character.

There is no way a LG priest of a good deity can simply walk away from or even negotiate with a creature of pure evil, a vampire no less. It's not only Durkon who hates them undead so much - that's what priests in DnD do. That's why they're there, and that's why their gods fuel them with their divine energy, to be their champions against Evil and the undead. Had Durkon done anything but try to defeat or at least contain Malack, that would actually have been a threat to his LG alignment. And even though alignment shouldn't be a straight-jacket, almost everything about Durkon in this campaign has been about adhering to the alignment he picked at character creation.

That's why I so sympasize with Durkon's player: I think he loves his character, and he's so into Durkon, that during the last few comics, he has realized the inevitable: the only way he could stay true to the character he so loves, is to lead Durkon down that path to heroic death - or actually worse: To horrible, enslaved undeath.

But it shows roleplay of high class, that instead of just minmaxing and optimizing out of it, breaking entirely the character he has spent 877 comics to develop, he just had to stick with it and accept the fate.
The emotions Durkon's player has now: The loss, the despair - that's what really makes it worthwhile to play DnD, that's why DnD may sometimes be "more real than life", and may provide gamers with a way to experience the highs and lows of life without actually going through them physically. And for Durkon's player, I bet that extreme sensation of tragedy is also mixed with a great sense of pride and contentment: He stayed true to his character to the end. Even the other players will probably watch in awe: The death of Durkon will be one of their most memorable moments while playing DnD, and will inspire them to even better role-play in the future.

DnD is about telling a compelling story together (at least to me - and according to the guys who wrote the rule books in the first place).

[Man on Fire]

What I love is the insistence that there must be a player behind Durkon's actions, but the complete inability to imagine that player as anything but an emotionally vacant strategy machine whose sole consideration must be maximum efficiency.

It's not a game, it's a story. But even if it were a game, not everyone plays it that way.

EDIT: In case I need to be really clear: No, of course Durkon did not want to die.

With all due respect, I think there is nothing wrong with beliving there are players. It gives completely new perspective to many things. Like in this case. Because, while I disagree that Durkon not acting like cold, logical killing machine, shows his player wanted him to die, I think that idea of said player wanting to retire the character and setting up opportunity for him to die heroic death with DM, and maybe Belkar's player, is pretty interesting concept.