Undead and Souls

[Trillium]

So, now that we know that the real Durkon's soul is trapped within Durkula's body/soul, would it be logical to assume, that it is common for all sentient undead to follow same principles?

Is there a repentant and tormented old man's spirit trapped within Xykon?

[zimmerwald1915]

would it be logical to assume, that it is common for all sentient undead to follow same principles?

No, it would not be logical to assume that.

[hamishspence]

It would, however, be correct (using standard D&D) that all sentient undead have souls.

The "trapped soul" model tends to be used with spawning undead - ones that use some kind of spawning ability to create more undead.

That ability might be called Create Spawn, or it might be called Ghoul Fever - but the same principle tends to apply.

[Obscure Blade]

Is there a repentant and tormented old man's spirit trapped within Xykon?

Nope, given how exceedingly evil he was while alive. Also, the vampire spirit in Durkon's body is aware of Durkon as a separate entity, while there's never been a hint that Lich Xykon is a different Xykon than fleshy Xykon.

And liches and vampires are created by very different methods to boot.

[Keltest]

So, now that we know that the real Durkon's soul is trapped within Durkula's body/soul, would it be logical to assume, that it is common for all sentient undead to follow same principles?

Is there a repentant and tormented old man's spirit trapped within Xykon?

The process of creating a Lich specifically remove's the target's soul and places it within a vessel for preservation (the Phylactery). If a malign entity took over the body, they could just destroy that body and regenerate a new one.

[hamishspence]

Actually, the phylactery is not stated to be the repository for the soul in MM - at least - not for the lich under normal circumstances. It should be thought of as the location the soul retreats to when the lich's undead body is slain, I think.

Complete Divine (D&D splatbook) takes this approach.

In SoD, Xykon specifically states that his soul is not - at the moment - in the phylactery - which matches up well with Complete Divine:

Complete Divine (p126):

liches are characters who've voluntarily transformed themselves into undead, trapping their souls in skeletal bodies.

[Keltest]

Actually, the phylactery is not stated to be the repository for the soul in MM - at least - not for the lich under normal circumstances. It should be thought of as the location the soul retreats to when the lich's undead body is slain, I think.

Complete Divine (D&D splatbook) takes this approach.

In SoD, Xykon specifically states that his soul is not - at the moment - in the phylactery - which matches up well with Complete Divine:

Well, either way, it's Xykon's soul in the driver's seat.

[BaronOfHell]

Maybe the process Malack expected went something along the lines of:
#1 Make thrall (undead spirit is in control)
#2 Release thrall (undead spirit leaves body, former soul takes over)

But I guess maybe Hel was keeping an eye out for this opportunity so in stead of Durkon retaking his now vampire body, Hel had another spirit possess it.

On the other hand, it could also be because Durkon is not evil and vampires are evil, hence if the soul isn't evil an evil spirit will be in control in stead.

I wonder if this process allows any number of spirits to enter Durkon's body as a vessel.

[Gift Jeraff]

Maybe the process Malack expected went something along the lines of:
#1 Make thrall (undead spirit is in control)
#2 Release thrall (undead spirit leaves body, former soul takes over)

But I guess maybe Hel was keeping an eye out for this opportunity so in stead of Durkon retaking his now vampire body, Hel had another spirit possess it.

On the other hand, it could also be because Durkon is not evil and vampires are evil, hence if the soul isn't evil an evil spirit will be in control in stead.

I wonder if this process allows any number of spirits to enter Durkon's body as a vessel.

It's implied that this spirit was inside Durkon as a thrall, as Rich implied he was a cleric of Hel when he conjured the barbed devil.

[AKA_Bait]

Maybe the process Malack expected went something along the lines of:
#1 Make thrall (undead spirit is in control)
#2 Release thrall (undead spirit leaves body, former soul takes over)

It seems more likely to me that Malack expected something like:
#1 Make thrall (Malack is in control of undead spirit, former soul is still trapped).
#2 Release thrall (undead spirit is in the driver's seat, former soul is still trapped).

[Roland Itiative]

If I'm not mistaken, the fact vampires are controlled by dark souls different from the original mortal is backed up by RAW, but just for vampires (or rather, just for a sub-set of undead creatures, not all of them).

As for Malack acting like he and the priest his vampire self was born from were the same person, right now I think that usually vampire do think they're the same as the mortal, and Durkula is an exception. I imagine the usual vampire gets a "fresh" soul when they're transformed, and this soul, while definitely evil, latches onto the memories in that body, without knowing they weren't always there. Durkula, on the other hand, already had some memories of Hel, and thus managed to keep his identity completely separate from Durkon's.

Or maybe Malack did know that the soul in control was "born" a vampire, but it's not common for vampires to share that knowledge in a direct fashion (after all, it's very useful to pretend you're still somewhat "human", no one would want to blow that cover). He did say that reviving "him" would destroy the person he was, and that the mortal priest who became Malack didn't even have this name originally. He also acted like the Durkon was dead once he vampirised him (trying to fulfil his last wish, for instance), and was reluctant to turn his friend to begin with, once more implying the end result of the process was not really Durkon.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Xykon was an evil, terrible person almost right from the start. He willingly underwent the process of becoming a lich with no second thoughts. I doubt liches work the same way vampires do, but if they do then Xykon is no doubt cool with everything. However, as I said, I doubt liches work like vampires.

[Psyren]

So, now that we know that the real Durkon's soul is trapped within Durkula's body/soul, would it be logical to assume, that it is common for all sentient undead to follow same principles?

According to Libris Mortis: specifically for the ones that were created by being preyed upon by another undead, yes. So Isamu might have been trapped inside his wight-body until Belkar "released him."

For liches - no, because they chose to become what they are. Lichdom is always voluntary.

[Sir_Leorik]

So, now that we know that the real Durkon's soul is trapped within Durkula's body/soul, would it be logical to assume, that it is common for all sentient undead to follow same principles?

We can assume nothing of the kind. It may be that this only happened because Hel specifically caused it, or it may only happen with Vampires.

Is there a repentant and tormented old man's spirit trapped within Xykon?

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

Xykon does not have the spirit of a tormented old man within his bones, but he does have the spirit of one in his pocket, along with the spirit of that Elf hippie chick.

[hamishspence]

According to Libris Mortis: specifically for the ones that were created by being preyed upon by another undead, yes. So Isamu might have been trapped inside his wight-body until Belkar "released him."

Complete Divine actually - but yes.

As the two main sources discussing souls and undead, which book says what seems to get confused now and again.

[happyman]

I actually tend to the belief that this was a special case of spawning simply because of the stakes involved. I don't know if we can generalize this to every case.

On the other hand, as I mentioned in another thread, it thoroughly justifies turning things evil without turning morality into rubbish, so maybe. I'm guessing that no matter how standard vampire spawn works, this one is special in at least some way.

[zimmerwald1915]

Complete Divine actually - but yes.

As the two main sources discussing souls and undead, which book says what seems to get confused now and again.

To be fair, I at least found Libris Mortis' take on the subject considerably harder to locate in the book than Complete Divine's. Complete Divine's take on how vampires and other spawning undead work can be found on page 126. I still haven't found the page that gives Libris Mortis' take.

[hamishspence]

It's on page 7 of Libris Mortis: Atrocity Calls to Unlife.

[zimmerwald1915]

It's on page 7 of Libris Mortis: Atrocity Calls to Unlife.

Dankeschoen.

[Gnome Alone]

I regard all the stuff not in the core books to be completely optional and non-canonical for the standard, nebulous D&D setting, including what is so often called "fluff." And of course, whether one holds that same opinion or not, what the splatbooks or even the core books say does not necessarily have any bearing on OOTS, given that it's not D&D. So I don't think that a vampirized Durkon had to be a separate entity than the OD (original dwarf.) I'm actually pretty surprised that they are indeed separate: Durkon and the High Priest of Hel, just because so many of the usual crazy-theory speculators were so insistent that they were on the basis of so little evidence. Shows what I know, I guess.

Also, man am I glad that there is finally a non-stupid thing to call vampirized-Durkon: "The High Priest of Hel." Now there's no reason for anyone to keep saying "Durkula" at all, other than to give me a headache.* Of course, prior to #946 I would've said there was no need to have a separate term, seeing as how I think the evidence pointed to Durkon being the same ol' dwarf but just "in the shop," but again, shows what I know.

*Even "waah waah 'the High Priest of Hel' is too long" has no stubby little dwarven legs to stand on, as he could also be called Hel-Priest for short.

[zimmerwald1915]

I regard all the stuff not in the core books to be completely optional and non-canonical for the standard, nebulous D&D setting, including what is so often called "fluff." And of course, whether one holds that same opinion or not, what the splatbooks or even the core books say does not necessarily have any bearing on OOTS, given that it's not D&D. So I don't think that a vampirized Durkon had to be a separate entity than the OD (original dwarf.)

I don't think anything is saying that. What people are trying to do is find other sources that have vampires work in a way similar to the way the Giant has shown them working in The Order of the Stick. That's why people keep bringing up Buffy (even though the soul in Buffy is displaced from, and not enchained in, the body by the vampire spirit). That one of the sources that happens to contain an explanation of how vampires work that looks very similar to the way the Giant has shown them working is a D&D source is merely, as Hel would say, "serendipitous."

[rbetieh]

Also, man am I glad that there is finally a non-stupid thing to call vampirized-Durkon: "The High Priest of Hel." Now there's no reason for anyone to keep saying "Durkula" at all, other than to give me a headache.* Of course, prior to #946 I would've said there was no need to have a separate term, seeing as how I think the evidence pointed to Durkon being the same ol' dwarf but just "in the shop," but again, shows what I know.

*Even "waah waah 'the High Priest of Hel' is too long" has no stubby little dwarven legs to stand on, as he could also be called Hel-Priest for short.

High Priest of Hel?

HPOH...

HP-OH

Hippo!

From now on, V-Durkon shall be known as King Hippo!

[hamishspence]

That one of the sources that happens to contain an explanation of how vampires work that looks very similar to the way the Giant has shown them working is a D&D source is merely, as Hel would say, "serendipitous."

Indeed. Though it does "gel well", so to speak, with the fact that The Giant has used content from other D&D books in the Complete (something) series.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Is there a repentant and tormented old man's spirit trapped within Xykon?

From what I've heard of Start of Darkness, no.
Anyone who starts out as an evil toddler isn't going to get any better.

But onto the more general question...I'd say it has more to do with one of two factors:
1. The method of creation. Vampires and other undead with the Create Spawn ability or whatever it's called have control over the spawn created. This could be interpreted as mind control, or else replacing the soul of the spawn with a more malign one (which better explains why they show up on Detect Evil when a party member controlled by said vampire does not). Liches, ghosts, and such, on the other hand, are not spawn.
2. Alignment change. Liches do not change alignment when they turn, but pretty much every other variety of undead which someone can turn into does. This can be seen as either a change of heart, or replacing some part of the soul of the target with something...else. Again, this wouldn't apply to Xykon.

[hr]

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

Xykon does not have the spirit of a tormented old man within his bones, but he does have the spirit of one in his pocket, along with the spirit of that Elf hippie chick.

Spoiler: Same

Show

Really? All the time? That seems like the kind of thing you'd keep in a little box at home, so it doesn't fall out when you, I dunno, ride into battle on an invisible dragon or something.

I regard all the stuff not in the core books to be completely optional and non-canonical for the standard, nebulous D&D setting, including what is so often called "fluff."

And the stuff in the core books...isn't?

And of course, whether one holds that same opinion or not, what the splatbooks or even the core books say does not necessarily have any bearing on OOTS, given that it's not D&D.

Well, yes, but sometimes understanding the way D&D works provides greater insight on what's going on. And not just with the obvious rules jokes.

Also, man am I glad that there is finally a non-stupid thing to call vampirized-Durkon: "The High Priest of Hel." Now there's no reason for anyone to keep saying "Durkula" at all, other than to give me a headache.*

That does sound nice.

*Even "waah waah 'the High Priest of Hel' is too long" has no stubby little dwarven legs to stand on, as he could also be called Hel-Priest for short.

Or Priest of Hel. Poh for short.

[Knight.Anon]

Xykon still has his soul, but the loss of his humanity has caused him become even more evil. Because he's dead they only thing that makes him happy is hurting people. He doesn't sleep, eat, smell, or feel. All of those chemicals that cause day to day feelings and emotions are gone. Being powered by the opposite of life while remaining in the living world has got twist his psyche even further. Being a Lich drives a lot of Liches insane as eternity goes on and on. Xykon is still real young as Lichhood goes.

Other undead are vastly different. Lesser undead are virtually constructs, others are beasts endless trying to appease a hunger that never ends.

Ghosts and Revenants have something that makes them unable to leave the mortal world. I'm not sure what makes wraiths and specters tick.

I think there are lots of different states for vampires but they all function mostly the same. I don't think Malack was the same as Durkula or he wouldn't have been be so eager to convert him. Durkon being a cleric for a different pantheon likely changed the rules. Maybe there was a ritual that Malack knew that could actually make Durkon retain his soul but Malack was destroyed before he could cast it. That would be appropriately tragic.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I think there are lots of different states for vampires but they all function mostly the same. I don't think Malack was the same as Durkula or he wouldn't have been be so eager to convert him. Durkon being a cleric for a different pantheon likely changed the rules. Maybe there was a ritual that Malack knew that could actually make Durkon retain his soul but Malack was destroyed before he could cast it. That would be appropriately tragic.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't follow your logic. Could you explain a bit?

[zimmerwald1915]

Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't follow your logic. Could you explain a bit?

There's a theory going around that Durkon's vampirization is somehow different from "normal" vampirization because Hel intervened somehow. It has about as much textual support as the Trigak theory.

[Ring_of_Gyges]

Durkula is in cahoots with a god. I wouldn't make any assumptions about how things normally work when there is a god who is trying to trick people thrown into the mix.

Powers (in the Planescape sense of the word) can be very tricky folk and entirely capable of playing funny games with how souls attach to bodies.

[Morty]

Honestly, I think the way it seems to work in OotS and the D&D supplements mentioned here is the only way to make sense of the Always Evil restriction, ultimately. Otherwise, we have the situation in which being turned into a vampire somehow makes even a noble soul like Durkon evil - and can it really be called evil (or good, if it were to happen in reverse) if you're forced into it by a supernatural affliction? Having a vampire be actually an evil spirit hijacking the victim's body is a lot cleaner and makes as much sense as any part of D&D alignment can.

[Knight.Anon]

Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't follow your logic. Could you explain a bit?

DnD operates on the rule of cool, and vampires are very cool and popular so in game vampires can be created in a variety of ways. Vampires like Dracula were cursed for being evil. Strahd von Zarovich made a deal with death, killed his brother and was killed by his own guard. Of course this idea doesn't specifically apply to the OOTS world, so maybe all vampires were bitten there.

I don't think Malack would have created Durkua if he knew that he would be creating something that was utterly not his friend. Then again maybe Vampires have an overwhelming need to create another Vampire. Malack seemed pretty set on converting somebody that day.

I just like the idea that there are lots of ways to become and exist as a vampire but as far as the rules for the game go they operate more or less the same. The DM can also tweak the rules to make each vampire unique.

So maybe Malack was still the Lizard-folk shaman twisted by unlife much the same way as a Lich is twisted. Durkon coming from a different, culture and species became a very different Vampire than his sire. The same could go for any Vampires that Durkon creates and then gives free will.

Magic isn't Science - so if it seems like a good idea why not? Its a world literally made from what a score of Gods desired. If they had more than one idea of what a vampire should be like then there that's the way its going to be.