OOTS #906 - The Discussion Thread

[Porthos]

i ahve not referenced 878 in a very long time

It was all a part of the comment chain referring to how Durkon was 'confused' and what Malack truly meant by that. But if you are willing to set that aside, so am I.

in THIS comic he calls the Thrall his Thrall because it is a Thrall, it it not yet Durkon since Malack is controlling all of its actions himself and it has no personality it is a Thrall, it is only now once again Durkon because only now will it have its own personality and memorys in whcih its actions will be shaped by

if Malack wasnt magically controlling its actions and supressing its mind he wouldnt ahve called it Thrall, but he was so he did

But, my point, and my overarching point, is by calling Durkon a Thrall it says something about how Malack truly deeply when-the-chips-were-down my very soul is exposed to the heavens felt about the thing walking around next to him.

Let me put it to you this way (which might be a bit of a stretch, but I'm going somewhere with it). Have you ever seen the film Aladdin? Aladdin, when he was dealing with the Genie called him 'Genie'. When Jafar ordered him around? 'Slave'.

Words mean things. Even you are saying that Malack truly didn't think of Durkula as something more than a thrall. To me, and this is all I have been saying all along, I find it disappointing that in his moment of crisis Malack didn't cry out for Durkon to save him. No he called out for his slave to save him. The person who he mentally controls. The person who he could have released mentally at any time, but chose not to because the time wasn't right yet.

Yes, it does say something to me that he in a moment of panic said Thrall and not Durkon. Maybe if he was cold and calculating and in full position of his wits, you could say he had good reason to call Durkon a thrall. But in a moment of blind and utter panic? It shows what he presently thought of the thing that walked around.

He might very well have felt differently once he released him. I'll even say he would have. But in this situation? This exact moment in time? He didn't.

He didn't cry out for his friend to save him. He called out for his slave to save him.

As I said, that detracts Malack a little bit in my eyes. Even if it is accurate, it detracts. Even if Malack is 100% justified in calling that thing a Thrall, it still shows that, emotionally, he didn't view it as Durkon yet.

And for that? For that I judge Malack. Just as I would have judged him had he cried out for 'Durkon' to save him.

[Leirus]

The obligation he felt towards Durkon was self-serving. His friendship with Durkon was always self-serving. His justification for sparing the Order of the Stick was self-serving, as was his justification for not helping the Order against the silicon elemental.

The Malack we've seen since he was revealed as a vampire has been a self-serving hypocrite. Whatever one's belief on the level of obligation he had to Durkon, he was willing to compromise that commitment if it helped him in some way.

I did not really read it like that. It was not self serving to spare the order in the pyramid, I think. But again, that is to be expected in a lawful character who makes an agreement. Was Malack evil? Of course he was. Did he followed rules and respect the pacts he made? Sure, he had been working with Tarquin for years.

[SaintRidley]

hes saying that calling the thrall a thrall means he doesnt see Durkon as an equal, im jsut pointing out the Thrall is a thrall until Durkon is put back in control

Okay, normally I have you on Ignore. But I'll respond to you this once. Of course Porthos is saying that. That's how words work. To call someone a thrall is to explicitly state that they are not your equal. It's the same as saying "You, slave, go fetch me some water." And for Malack to do that completely flies in the face of everything he said to Durkon ever about how he saw Durkon.

That's words. Don't like them? I'd suggest turn in your literacy because you're bound to encounter more of them, but that's unrealistic.

[Amphiox]

The things people say in extremis are often the most telling.

That Malack would at that moment choose to call Durkula "thrall" is therefore telling irrespective of whether it is accurate or justifiable that he use that word.

Because there are LOTS of words he could have used that are equally accurate or justifiable, but he did not choose to use them. He chose "thrall".

WHY did he choose "thrall" instead of any of the others?

That is the point.

[DaggerPen]

so if you were being burned alive and panicing to stay alive youd still make sure you adressed everyone with proper manners and honourifics?

Of course I wouldn't. I'd address them by whatever name first came to mind, which would be a reflection of the way I thought of them at their base level. Tsukiko still called her wights her children as she was being eaten alive, yet when Malack is desperate and dying, he does not call Durkon Durkon, or Brother, or even Child - he calls him Thrall.

now whos the hypocrite

Huh?

quite frankly im disgusted that one word from Malack somehow negates everything we know about his character, even as he burns he never begs nale for his life and still struggles as much as he can to enact his revenge

It doesn't negate everything about him. But I think it shows that there may have been some level of self-deception on his part, some attempt to cling to the relationship with Durkon he'd treasured, but that, ultimately, he knew he was fooling himself, and his "little brother" was just his mindless thrall.

[Avianmosquito]

Yes, it's a Nitori avatar I adopted.

It's very cute. Sorry I had to ask, my daughter absconded with my laptop and it's hard to make things out on her iPod's tiny, dark, dirty screen.

[Porthos]

quite frankly im disgusted that one word from Malack somehow negates everything we know about his character, even as he burns he never begs nale for his life and still struggles as much as he can to enact his revenge

It's not me who said that it 'negates everything we know about his character'. Not even by implication. What it does do is add a wrinkle.

Personally I think Malack would have acted differently if Durkon was not a thrall. But I am also saying it adds an heretofore unseen aspect to his character when he acted the way he did here.

A layer was added to the onion, as it were. Nothing more. Nothing less.

[Jawdan]

Just popping in here to say that Nale was badass.

[With a box]

Malack should get a umbrella,like MITD's.

[Porthos]

I know I'm not involved in this conversation, but honestly, I'd be siding with Porthos here even if I didn't agree with their (sorry, no gender specified and I don't want to gamble) interpretation of Malack's words.

It's 'he'. But thanks for taking the time and effort not to presume. 'tis appreciated.

[Tannhaeuser]

This comic was just sumptuously satisfying. I always did think that Nale was underrated as a character, and I feel just a bit vindicated to see him so dexterously take down the formidable vampire cleric.

If, like Elan, Nale needed to pun,
I would gladly present him this one:
“Malack, as a young villain,
I killed all your ‘chillun’―
But allow me to give back your sun.”

[Forikroder]

But, my point, and my overarching point, is by calling Durkon a Thrall it says something about how Malack truly deeply when-the-chips-were-down my very soul is exposed to the heavens felt about the thing walking around next to him.

EXACTLY it was a thing next to him, it was not Durkon it was jsut a puppet

its like saying that Haley should ahve followed orders from Roys bone golem, or only reffered to it as roy and not a golem

I find it disappointing that in his moment of crisis Malack didn't cry out for Durkon to save him.

DURKON WASNT THERE

in order for Malack to cry out for Durkon hed have to release him from the Thrallhood and wait for him to realise what was happening

Even if it is accurate, it detracts. Even if Malack is 100% justified in calling that thing a Thrall, it still shows that, emotionally, he didn't view it as Durkon yet.

only because, once again, that thing wasnt Durkon anymore thent aht golem was Roy

Malack showed taht he truly cared for his spawn as children even as he faced extinction his (panel 15) he still goes on about having revenge for his dead children

even when its clear that he has no chance and he faces extinction he still desires to avenge his childrens death, even though Nale could save him he still spits in his face

Of course I wouldn't. I'd address them by whatever name first came to mind, which would be a reflection of the way I thought of them at their base level. Tsukiko still called her wights her children as she was being eaten alive, yet when Malack is desperate and dying, he does not call Durkon Durkon, or Brother, or even Child - he calls him Thrall.

your comparing apples to oranges, Tsukiko was in a relatively calm position where she had time to think without CONSTANT BURNING AGONY Malack didnt his last line may have been for his god, but his second was for his dead children

Malack TRULY LOVED his undead spawn, just as he truly meant everything he said about Durkon

jsut because he could not see the mindless doll as Durkon means NOTHING beucase it WASNT Durkon it was a mindless doll that would be Durkon when the current chaos had subsided

[Teioh]

No, I'd probably call them whatever came to mind first. In Malack's case, that was ''Thrall''. Unlike poor Kiko, who tried to treat the wights like ghouls to the very end. (off topic; still eagerly awaiting RC end; unlike Nale, I hope is horridly unsatisfying for him)

[DaggerPen]

It's 'he'. But thanks for taking the time and effort not to presume. 'tis appreciated.

Noted for future reference. Thanks!

[Lordchoculla]

Wow! I liked Malack, but this turn of events is ... like wow, man. Amazing, Giant, thanks!

Evil turns upon itself yet again.

Edit: I wonder if Durkula will be loyal to Nale now that Nale has freed him from Durkula's evil vampire lord? Hmmm...

[Porthos]

It's the same as saying "You, slave, go fetch me some water."

It's funny you make the slave analogy. Great minds think alike and all that, I suppose.

[MelTorefas]

Malack should get a umbrella,like MITD's.

That would have been kind of hilarious. Kind of out of character, but hilarious. XD

[DarthMauler64]

When I read the title of the comic I thought it was going to be the other way around...

[gooddragon1]

All this effort to prove that characters below tier 1 are just as important to the story feels like how authors try to make aqua man relevant. Sure he does amazing things but you still have to write around it to make it happen. :/

I mean really... what level adjustment do vampires have? Like +8? A decently optimized tier 1 has no problem dealing with lower tiers even if they planned.

I like the story but I hate the digs at higher tiers of characters. Meh, no one ever likes everything :/

[Leirus]

The things people say in extremis are often the most telling.

That Malack would at that moment choose to call Durkula "thrall" is therefore telling irrespective of whether it is accurate or justifiable that he use that word.

Because there are LOTS of words he could have used that are equally accurate or justifiable, but he did not choose to use them. He chose "thrall".

WHY did he choose "thrall" instead of any of the others?

That is the point.

But Durkon at that point was a thrall. He may have used all the honorifics before because that was the corpse of a friend, but we have seen it had the mind of a child. It does not even speak like Durkon.

I dunno, I totally get your point, but I think there is space for an alternative explanation.

[Crusher]

Well I'll be a monkey's uncle. That was friggin awesome. One of the best strips ever.

[Forikroder]

No, I'd probably call them whatever came to mind first. In Malack's case, that was ''Thrall''. Unlike poor Kiko, who tried to treat the wights like ghouls to the very end. (off topic; still eagerly awaiting RC end; unlike Nale, I hope is horridly unsatisfying for him)

even as the sun burned his flesh he still tried to kill Nale for killing his children, he still loved them and wanted nothing more then to avenge there deaths

[SaintRidley]

All this effort to prove that characters below tier 1 are just as important to the story feels like how authors try to make aqua man relevant. Sure he does amazing things but you still have to write around it to make it happen. :/

I mean really... what level adjustment do vampires have? Like +8? A decently optimized tier 1 has no problem dealing with lower tiers even if they planned.

I like the story but I hate the digs at higher tiers of characters. Meh, no one ever likes everything :/

This isn't a game. Nor is it a comic about optimized people. So I'm just a bit confused as to what you see in this particular strip to get your dander up.

[Avianmosquito]

But Durkon at that point was a thrall. He may have used all the honorifics before because that was the corpse of a friend, but we have seen it had the mind of a child. It does not even speak like Durkon.

I dunno, I totally get your point, but I think there is space for an alternative explanation.

It did NOT have the mind of a child. A child has as much of a mind as any other person, a thrall barely has a mind at all. You just insulted two billion people.

[Forikroder]

It did NOT have the mind of a child. A child has the mind of any other person, a thrall barely has a mind at all. You just insulted two billion people.

by mind he meant intelligence if you want to get so technical

(or maybe you really didnt understand what he meant)

[Gift Jeraff]

While I agree that Malack calling him "Thrall" in a moment of desperation shows his true views on Enslaved Durkon, has it been pointed out that Thrall is quicker to say than Brother/Durkon/Thundershield/Child?

[DaggerPen]

All this effort to prove that characters below tier 1 are just as important to the story feels like how authors try to make aqua man relevant. Sure he does amazing things but you still have to write around it to make it happen. :/

I mean really... what level adjustment do vampires have? Like +8? A decently optimized tier 1 has no problem dealing with lower tiers even if they planned.

... Aquaman has enhanced senses, superstrength, nigh-invulnerability, superhuman speed and reflexes and in some iterations water manipulation, and is the ruler of a massive undersea kingdom. If anyone needs to prove that they can hold their own in the Justice League, it's Batman, and I say that as a huge Batman fan (or a fan of the various supporting characters who tend to hang around him, at any rate.)

Anyway, I'm not sure I see your criticism here. I mean, D&D classes aren't as balanced as they really should be, and the story has set up situations to level things out because of that, but a well planned dispel magic and grapple check that takes advantage of several already set up story elements isn't really some contortion, nor does it really seem like it's meant to show that lower tier characters are relevant?

[Everfreefire]

At least now we get to know how Durkon will keep up Protection from Sunlight...

Though it makes me wonder why Malack didn't use the staff to cast it on Durkon in the first place.

[Porthos]

EXACTLY it was a thing next to him, it was not Durkon it was jsut a puppet

its like saying that Haley should ahve followed orders from Roys bone golem, or only reffered to it as roy and not a golem



DURKON WASNT THERE

in order for Malack to cry out for Durkon hed have to release him from the Thrallhood and wait for him to realise what was happening



only because, once again, that thing wasnt Durkon anymore thent aht golem was Roy

Malack showed taht he truly cared for his spawn as children even as he faced extinction his (panel 15) he still goes on about having revenge for his dead children

even when its clear that he has no chance and he faces extinction he still desires to avenge his childrens death, even though Nale could save him he still spits in his face

Yes, but I believe you are the one who said that people react emotionally and not logically in that situation. Malack had plenty of intellectual reasons not to think of Durkula as Durkon yet. I disagree with them, but that's neither here nor there for the purpose of this debate.

But emotionally? There he should have looked at Durkula and seen Durkon.

I personally, and I only speak of myself, would have actually been touched emotionally if he cried out for Durkon in his moment of need. It would have been an emotional response... no a cry for help from his dear friend.

In the end, that is ALL I am saying. Whether or not Malack is justified in calling Durkon a thrall is irrelevant in my mind. It really really is. Malack, when he panicked, asked... No, ordered his slave to help him when he could have pleaded for his friend to save him.

That might mean little to you. It means a bit more to me.

...

Ironically, I have you to thank in part for this realization. I was disquieted by that scene, but it wasn't until I really thought about it (thanks to this discussion) that I realized why. I frowned to myself when I read that word when I was initially reading it. I'm sure I would have felt a pang of regret for Malack had he cried out for Durkon. Yet I wouldn't have given it quite as much thought right away as I am doing now. I probably would have realized it later and shook my head at Malack's word choice.

But thinking about it this much? Or at least realizing it right away? I have you to thank you for that. And I really do mean that.

[Avianmosquito]

by mind he meant intelligence if you want to get so technical

(or maybe you really didnt understand what he meant)

"Intelligence." You do not know what that word means. Intelligence is NOT knowledge, intelligence is a measure of mental power, and by most definitions a child has more of it, as children have greater learning power with no other drawbacks. Children lack in knowledge and education, do NOT mistake that for stupidity.