Why will the Belksters death be permanent?

[Mastikator]

I don't know about "stupidly."

Thar be no compromise, that be no parley, an' thar be no reasonable discussions!
Yer a frickin' vampire, Malack! Yer a danger ta everyone livin' on this continent!

Everyone who knows Durkon would know that he'd never accept a vampire even if the world hangs in the balance.

Either they don't know Durkon, or they're too stupid to see the truth.

[factotum]

Everyone who knows Durkon would know that he'd never accept a vampire even if the world hangs in the balance.

Either they don't know Durkon, or they're too stupid to see the truth.

Or maybe they realise that Durkon was speaking in the context of a vampire who he'd already seen feeding on Belkar? And I notice you're missing out the last part of Durkon's speech: "And even if I ignored that, you still can't be allowed to seize this place.". The implication is that he *could* choose to ignore that.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Everyone who knows Durkon would know that he'd never accept a vampire even if the world hangs in the balance.

Not quite. Also, how well does the Order know Durkon anyways? Do they know enough about him to know how he feels, according to you?

[orrion]

Thar be no compromise, that be no parley, an' thar be no reasonable discussions!
Yer a frickin' vampire, Malack! Yer a danger ta everyone livin' on this continent!

Everyone who knows Durkon would know that he'd never accept a vampire even if the world hangs in the balance.

Either they don't know Durkon, or they're too stupid to see the truth.

Likely the former, and you can't prove he'd never accept a vampire. Especially because he does in fact invoke "the world hangs in the balance" during their conversation and indicates that it trumps everything else.

[Hexenarethi]

Back in the throne room Belkar stated with some confidence that Durkon would raise him from the dead if required, and I think he was right about the sentiment, if not the practicalities. Obviously Durkon is not in a position to now (And Durkula would not), but he is not comatose. He seems to be aware of his surroundings, which include the fact that the only person who is trying to get the real Durkon back is Belkar (not to mention Belkar's genuine development, which Durkon has a front row seat for)! That is not the sort of thing that Durkon would ignore, and I would imagine he would try to ressurect him at the first opportunity.

The prophesy states clearly that Belkar will take his last breath ever, so it is hard to see him getting ressurected without violating it. As it was an official prophesy I don't think this can be an oversight either. I can see 3 possible reasons the ressurection does not come.

1: Ressurection does not work, or would do huge amounts of damage. Possibly suggesting that Belkar will be lost to the Snarl.

2: Durkon does not get an opportunity to ressurect him at all. Assuming that Durkon will get 9th level spells at some point (Does not even need the remains), this means that Durkon will also be permanently lost before he gets a chance.

3: Belkar has redeemed himself to the point of ending up on the endless battlefields of Ysgard. I can think of no place where the sexy shoeless god of war would be happier, so he may not return. I think this one is unlikely, as it throws away most of Belkars development (loyalty to the cause becoming a 'thing').

Any other possibilities?

Sure, but there is a fourth option: The Oracle is totally screwing with Roy. I mean, Roy had been a pill to Oracle. In the first instance, he dangled Oracle out the window, demanding three questions for the price of one. Then he gave him an overly complicated question the second time. Finally, he came as a spirit with NO MONEY and demanded an answer. Besides, We all love Belkar to much for him to get killed.

[Kish]

Besides, We all love Belkar to much for him to get killed.

Whether or not Belkar dies will be determined by a system of one person, one vote. Rich Burlew is the one person who has the vote.

(The mice in your pockets especially don't get to vote.)

[Vinyadan]

Well, if you want to follow a s strict interpretation of what the Oracle has said, Undead are still in this world, so being Undead doesn't solve all his problems.

Spoiler: SOD

Show

And Xykon cannot taste coffee! That's why Belkar must savour his last birthday cake!

(The mice in your pockets especially don't get to vote.)

What about the lice?

[orrion]

Spoiler: SOD

Show

And Xykon cannot taste coffee! That's why Belkar must savour his last birthday cake!

Heh.

Seriously, though, I can't see the Order having two characters turned into Undead.

[Aedilred]

Thar be no compromise, that be no parley, an' thar be no reasonable discussions!
Yer a frickin' vampire, Malack! Yer a danger ta everyone livin' on this continent!

Everyone who knows Durkon would know that he'd never accept a vampire even if the world hangs in the balance.

Either they don't know Durkon, or they're too stupid to see the truth.

I'm not sure these statements are strictly accurate. Nobody else witnessed that conversation, so they may not know Durkon's specific feelings on the subject of vampirism. They might remember that Durkon hates the undead...but they might also consider vampires to be different from "regular" undead. It's not like they've encountered any before. The subject of "hey, Durkon, what do you think of vampires, and incidentally, if you were turned into one, would you be ok with it?"

There's also the Malack argument to consider - that the wishes of the living Malack are no more relevant (and in some ways less so) than the wishes of the current vampire. While truly alive, Durkon might indeed have refused vampirism (as he did). Now that he is a vampire, he appears to be still a sentient creature with free will, and seems to have accepted his fate. People have a remarkable propensity to refuse to do something in principle, then adjust their value system to take account of circumstances when they're actually presented with a situation. Even if the vampire Durkon isn't really Durkon, does that justify murdering him?

But anyway, that aside, Roy knows Durkon as well as, probably better than, anyone, and he doesn't appear to know that he'd never accept being a vampire even if the world hangs in the balance. We also know that Roy is at least reasonably intelligent - moreso than anyone else in the party save V. So the problem is neither not knowing Durkon, nor stupidity.

It might be wilful obliviousness. It might be that Roy finds it easier to pretend that Durkon's still Durkon rather than accept that his best friend is actually dead and gone and that he's going to have to kill something that looks exactly like him. It might just be pragmatism - that whatever the situation, they need a high-level cleric and this is the only one they've got, so he'll make the best of it until things are over and doesn't want to deal with it until then. Stupidity? Nah, don't think so.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Sure, but there is a fourth option: The Oracle is totally screwing with Roy. I mean, Roy had been a pill to Oracle. In the first instance, he dangled Oracle out the window, demanding three questions for the price of one. Then he gave him an overly complicated question the second time. Finally, he came as a spirit with NO MONEY and demanded an answer. Besides, We all love Belkar to much for him to get killed.

So far, despite being able to screw with the Order a lot more but giving them all wrong answers, he has given then correct answers, so I doubt he was screwing with Roy this time (especially with all the other hints he dropped before the other two incidents you named).

[Mastikator]

Or maybe they realise that Durkon was speaking in the context of a vampire who he'd already seen feeding on Belkar? And I notice you're missing out the last part of Durkon's speech: "And even if I ignored that, you still can't be allowed to seize this place.". The implication is that he *could* choose to ignore that.

Guess which other vampire fed on Belkar: Durkula. And no, he stipulated that he'd never accept an option where Malack was allowed to live, he said he was going to rez him after he destroyed him. But he literally said "thar be no reasonable compromise". There is no ambiguity here, there is no and if or but, vampires have to be destroyed ASAP.

Likely the former, and you can't prove he'd never accept a vampire. Especially because he does in fact invoke "the world hangs in the balance" during their conversation and indicates that it trumps everything else.

Yes I can prove it. Here, he says he'd never accept Malack as a vampire under any circumstances even in spite of the fact that up until now Malack has been the perfect gentleman and friend towards Durkon. It's there in black and white. Do you think Durkon was lying or joking or not sincere? Is that who you think Durkon was?
If Roy or Haley or V was turned into vampire then Durkon wouldn't hesitate to destroy them and rez them.

-
Edit

I'm not sure these statements are strictly accurate. Nobody else witnessed that conversation, so they may not know Durkon's specific feelings on the subject of vampirism. They might remember that Durkon hates the undead...but they might also consider vampires to be different from "regular" undead. It's not like they've encountered any before. The subject of "hey, Durkon, what do you think of vampires, and incidentally, if you were turned into one, would you be ok with it?"

There's also the Malack argument to consider - that the wishes of the living Malack are no more relevant (and in some ways less so) than the wishes of the current vampire. While truly alive, Durkon might indeed have refused vampirism (as he did). Now that he is a vampire, he appears to be still a sentient creature with free will, and seems to have accepted his fate. People have a remarkable propensity to refuse to do something in principle, then adjust their value system to take account of circumstances when they're actually presented with a situation. Even if the vampire Durkon isn't really Durkon, does that justify murdering him?

But anyway, that aside, Roy knows Durkon as well as, probably better than, anyone, and he doesn't appear to know that he'd never accept being a vampire even if the world hangs in the balance. We also know that Roy is at least reasonably intelligent - moreso than anyone else in the party save V. So the problem is neither not knowing Durkon, nor stupidity.

It might be wilful obliviousness. It might be that Roy finds it easier to pretend that Durkon's still Durkon rather than accept that his best friend is actually dead and gone and that he's going to have to kill something that looks exactly like him. It might just be pragmatism - that whatever the situation, they need a high-level cleric and this is the only one they've got, so he'll make the best of it until things are over and doesn't want to deal with it until then. Stupidity? Nah, don't think so.

Your argument is that Roy isn't ignorant or stupid, he's willfully ignorant?

Yeah they need a high level cleric. If Redcloak showed up and said "hey I'm a good person now, please let me help you" they wouldn't just blindly accept him because they need a cleric, they'd quickly realize that just because he's saying he'll help them that doesn't mean he will, same deal with Durkula, which we have seen has NO interest in helping them, he's gonna bail at the first opportunity and lay waste to the northern lands.

Durkon didn't just refuse to accept Malack out of stubbornness, he recognized just how dangerous vampires are, allowing a single one to live is to let it go lose and murder probably thousands over its life, we saw what Malack had in store for the continent, he wanted to have everyone sacrificed to Nergal, it wasn't stubbornness or ignorance that lead Durkon to the conclusion that you should never compromise with a Vampire, it was wisdom.
Durkon never tried to kill Belkar even though that guy is a monster, Durkon became hostile to Malack the instant he found out about him being a vampire.

[Kish]

There is no ambiguity here, there is no and if or but, vampires have to be destroyed ASAP.

This guy seems to disagree.

[Mastikator]

This guy seems to disagree.

Then the giant is contradicting his own work ex post facto? The giant is only human, he can make mistakes.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Then the giant is contradicting his own work ex post facto? The giant is only human, he can make mistakes.

No, he is not contradicting his own work. He is explaining why Durkon is reacting so aggressively. The problem is that you are taking Durkon's statement, delivered in very stressful circumstances where his view of a friend had been upheaved, and assuming that it would apply absolutely.

[Aedilred]

Your argument is that Roy isn't ignorant or stupid, he's willfully ignorant?

I didn't say that Roy wasn't ignorant. I said he wasn't stupid. It's entirely possible that nobody in the Order knows how Durkon feels about vampires in general. Heck, depending on what conversations were had off-panel, they might even think that Durkon knew Malack was a vampire all along and only fought him to protect Belkar. None of the Order, save Belkar, witnessed that conversation, and nobody is listening to Belkar anyway. And we know that people in the OOtS-verse are generally ignorant as to the mechanics of vampirism.

Coming from that perspective of limited knowledge, there's relatively little evidence for Roy to go on to judge what's going on with Durkon, most of it circumstantial, and he probably has quite a large mental block with dealing with it anyway. If he listened to Belkar, then yes, the pieces might start falling into place, but nobody trusts Belkar, or Belkar's judgment, and if Roy hadn't seen vampire Durkon with his own eyes he might very well still believe Belkar was lying about everything (as the illusion suggested).

Durkon didn't just refuse to accept Malack out of stubbornness, he recognized just how dangerous vampires are, allowing a single one to live is to let it go lose and murder probably thousands over its life, we saw what Malack had in store for the continent, he wanted to have everyone sacrificed to Nergal, it wasn't stubbornness or ignorance that lead Durkon to the conclusion that you should never compromise with a Vampire, it was wisdom.
Durkon never tried to kill Belkar even though that guy is a monster, Durkon became hostile to Malack the instant he found out about him being a vampire.

All of this is true, but Roy has no idea any of that happened, so we can't use it to judge his response.

[Kish]

Then the giant is contradicting his own work ex post facto? The giant is only human, he can make mistakes.

Not touching it. Just saying: If you want to claim that Roy should know that Durkon would never-never tolerate the most good and helpful of vampires, not even if the alternative was the destruction of the entire world, and is being unaccountably stupid not to proceed according to the knowledge, that claim seems on extremely shaky ground*.

*This is an understatement, charmingness to be assessed by the individual reader.

[orrion]

Yes I can prove it. Here, he says he'd never accept Malack as a vampire under any circumstances even in spite of the fact that up until now Malack has been the perfect gentleman and friend towards Durkon. It's there in black and white. Do you think Durkon was lying or joking or not sincere? Is that who you think Durkon was?
If Roy or Haley or V was turned into vampire then Durkon wouldn't hesitate to destroy them and rez them.

Might want to read the comic you're quoting.

"Yer a fricking vampire, Malack! Yer a danger to everyone livin on this continent. And even if I ignored that, you still can't be allowed to seize this place!" (I ignored the accent, for the most part).

So, the primary purpose being invoked here is stopping them from seizing the place. I think if Malack had been willing to back down on that point, Durkon would have at least postponed conflict. He's not a laser-guided missile for undead; saving the world takes precedence.

The party is postponing conflict as long as "Durkon" appears to be working toward their goal because their goal takes precedence, and Durkon's behavior supports that.

Besides, they arguably don't know him well enough to place a hatred of undead as a core characteristic of his personality. When Haley and Celia are describing him for the Cleric of Loki, hating undead is not a characteristic they use. Sure, that might not have differentiated him from any other dwarf either, but they still didn't mention it. You know what they did mention? His hatred of TREES. They were more aware that he doesn't like trees than they were that he doesn't like undead.

Roy might know him better, but then again he might not. Roy is also guilt tripping rather badly at the moment and that can blind anyone.

[ace rooster]

Sure, but there is a fourth option: The Oracle is totally screwing with Roy. I mean, Roy had been a pill to Oracle. In the first instance, he dangled Oracle out the window, demanding three questions for the price of one. Then he gave him an overly complicated question the second time. Finally, he came as a spirit with NO MONEY and demanded an answer. Besides, We all love Belkar to much for him to get killed.

I like the suggestion, and really want to believe it (he totally would troll roy at any chance), but the 3rd wall breaking comment to the oracle fans would mean he is trolling them too. Using my bard sense it doesn't seem to fit narratively either, though the prophesies do have loopholes.


I have come up with another possibility.
Durkula vamping Belkar to get him on side, and it backfiring. Belkar gets an evil soul in his head, who goes the way of his shoulder angel upon seeing his memories. Belkar is left in charge of his own body, so there is no point in changing him back. Meanwhile this is what finally causes roy to realise that Durkula is not Durkon.

[Kish]

I have come up with another possibility.
Durkula vamping Belkar to get him on side, and it backfiring. Belkar gets an evil soul in his head, who goes the way of his shoulder angel upon seeing his memories. Belkar is left in charge of his own body, so there is no point in changing him back. Meanwhile this is what finally causes roy to realise that Durkula is not Durkon.

I'm not even going to get into "that would leave Belkar still in the world," because instead I'm going to say:

Do you honestly, seriously, think that a long-ago joke about Belkar not having a conscience is going to lead to Rich Burlew, the guy who has written Belkar as the stupid takes-many-pratfalls triggers-Mark-of-Justice-and-vomits-all-over character he's actually written him as, having a serious plot point hinge on Belkar being able to ignore one of the rules of his setting just because he's (in the minds of certain of his fans) just that incredibly kewl? If Belkar became a free-willed vampire, the spirit directing his body would not blink at any of his memories ( "I see a lot of random, pointless slaughter in your past, so a lot like your future then! But what's this crap about caring about another being?" *Vampire Belkar kills Mr. Scruffy while Belkar's spirit watches in helpless horror*). If the High Priest of Hel turned Belkar into a thrall, then for as long as the High Priest of Hel existed, Vampire Belkar's attitude toward the High Priest of Hel would be limited to, "Yes, master."

[Mastikator]

Might want to read the comic you're quoting.

"Yer a fricking vampire, Malack! Yer a danger to everyone livin on this continent. And even if I ignored that, you still can't be allowed to seize this place!" (I ignored the accent, for the most part).

So, the primary purpose being invoked here is stopping them from seizing the place. I think if Malack had been willing to back down on that point, Durkon would have at least postponed conflict. He's not a laser-guided missile for undead; saving the world takes precedence.

The party is postponing conflict as long as "Durkon" appears to be working toward their goal because their goal takes precedence, and Durkon's behavior supports that.

Besides, they arguably don't know him well enough to place a hatred of undead as a core characteristic of his personality. When Haley and Celia are describing him for the Cleric of Loki, hating undead is not a characteristic they use. Sure, that might not have differentiated him from any other dwarf either, but they still didn't mention it. You know what they did mention? His hatred of TREES. They were more aware that he doesn't like trees than they were that he doesn't like undead.

Roy might know him better, but then again he might not. Roy is also guilt tripping rather badly at the moment and that can blind anyone.

Malack was willing to compromise and Durkon said no even as he knew the world was in the balance, and you're telling me that the primary purpose is the part that is followed by "and even if I ignore that" part?

Dude he put the world at risk when he refused to compromise, Malack might have been willing to let the gate be destroyed, that would've satisfied everyones goals, everyone except Durkon who would rather risk the world than let vampires exist in it.

[AbyssStalker]

Malack was willing to compromise and Durkon said no even as he knew the world was in the balance, and you're telling me that the primary purpose is the part that is followed by "and even if I ignore that" part?

Dude he put the world at risk when he refused to compromise, Malack might have been willing to let the gate be destroyed, that would've satisfied everyones goals, everyone except Durkon who would rather risk the world than let vampires exist in it.

Wow buddy, I don't know where you get the racism on Durkon's part from, the theory that Durkon "Would Rather risk the world than let vampires exist in it" is not supported at all by the comic's representation for him, what made him refuse to negotiate with Malack was the fact that he just walked in on Malack aggressively draining Belkar, Whom he knew had no knowledge of who Belkar is, and thus was attacking an innocent victim. Well, as innocent as Belkar gets.

In short, it is not the fact that he won't negotiate with vampires that is the case here, it is that he won't negotiate with cold-blooded (heh, literally in the case) murderers.

[Porthos]

Malack was willing to compromise

No matter how many times I see this, it never fails to surprise.

Malack's definition of 'compromise' was one where he really didn't have to give up much of anything. The most generous one was: Sit out the upcoming fight while my friends rend your friends from limb to limb.

Yeah. Huge compromise there.

ETA::::

To be clear:

Compromise #1: I won't hurt you personally in battle and you won't hurt me.
Compromise #2: We'll both sit this battle out and let our friends kill each other.
Compromise #3: Take you friends and leave and let us take over the Gate. I'll make sure Tarquin doesn't kill you.

Those... aren't exactly compromises. In my book, at least.

[dancrilis]

No matter how many times I see this, it never fails to surprise.

Malack's definition of 'compromise' was one where he really didn't have to give up much of anything. The most generous one was: Sit out the upcoming fight while my friends rend your friends from limb to limb.

Yeah. Huge compromise there.

Actually Durkon (and everyone else) might have been better taking that one - Belkar could have been told to let the order know the deal (which Roy might or might not have believed), and everything could have been the same from there on (mostly).

[orrion]

Malack was willing to compromise and Durkon said no even as he knew the world was in the balance, and you're telling me that the primary purpose is the part that is followed by "and even if I ignore that" part?

Um, yes. You don't use the phrase "and even if I ignore that" to state something less relevant.

Dude he put the world at risk when he refused to compromise, Malack might have been willing to let the gate be destroyed, that would've satisfied everyones goals, everyone except Durkon who would rather risk the world than let vampires exist in it.

Read. The. Comic. Malack never brought up letting the gate be destroyed or giving up the gate. His compromises were: 1) Don't harm each other. 2) Both withdraw. 3) OOTS withdraws. There was never a mention of Tarquin withdrawing or not capturing the gate.

Besides, even if I grant you Malack was willing to let the gate be destroyed, the Order wasn't. Destroying Girard's Gate was a last resort because they no longer had the firepower to hold off Xykon. It wasn't on the bargaining table.

How are you still misreading Durkon's actions even after the post was linked that has Rich explaining why Durkon did what he did? Your interpretation of his actions is wrong.

[1337Noooob]

Belkar will draw a picture of someone breathing and will never draw another picture of someone breathing ever again ‎( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Belkar will draw a picture of someone breathing and will never draw another picture of someone breathing ever again ‎( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Not just someone, he will draw himself. You know, if that's how the prophecy us fulfilled. Which it probably won't be.

[...]

Not just someone, he will draw himself. You know, if that's how the prophecy us fulfilled. Which it probably won't be.

No, Belkar has to draw his last breath ever, which means that he has to draw a picture of himself dying.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

No, Belkar has to draw his last breath ever, which means that he has to draw a picture of himself dying.

I suppose that is another (equally unlikely) way to interpret it.

[Mastikator]

Wow buddy, I don't know where you get the racism on Durkon's part from, the theory that Durkon "Would Rather risk the world than let vampires exist in it" is not supported at all by the comic's representation for him, what made him refuse to negotiate with Malack was the fact that he just walked in on Malack aggressively draining Belkar, Whom he knew had no knowledge of who Belkar is, and thus was attacking an innocent victim. Well, as innocent as Belkar gets.

In short, it is not the fact that he won't negotiate with vampires that is the case here, it is that he won't negotiate with cold-blooded (heh, literally in the case) murderers.

Racism? What's next? Racism against ghouls? Racism against wights? "Vampire" is not a race, "undead" is not a race. How many undead have been non-evil in the OotSverse? ZERO. It's completely valid to assume that the next vampire you're going to meet is going to be Evil with a capital E.

[Kish]

The fact that you appear to believe the author's actual words on the subject you're arguing about will simply go away if you ignore them hard enough has me wondering what the people who are arguing with you hope to accomplish.