OOTS #984 - The Discussion Thread

[Fitzclowningham]

Durkon can cast resurrection. He doesn't need anyone rezzed, so it's the only other explanation.

He wants to go to the Dwarven Lands (imho, not necessarily; could be somewhere else that's important to Odin and Thor) and f--- s--- up on Hel's behalf. He's not looking for a cleric, only the nearest place with a cleric of that level. Which happens to be the DL.

[dancrilis]

Your argument is that the changes Malack's vampiric soul would encounter upon being brought back to life yet still being in control of his body would be so drastic that you say it was practically an annihilation of who he was. This is your interpretation of his words in the episode I cited.

Not quite, my thinking was that it could be regarded as drastic enough that Malack could regard it as destroying the person he is - same as if you were polymorphed into a squid - a squids thought pattern and how it perceives the the world might be different enough for you to consider your old self to have been destroyed.

Further even relative minor things can be important to people.
Doctor: You shall drink no more absinthe from this day forward - or you shall die within a year.
Patient: NO! Not drinking absinthe is merely a complicated way of annihilating the person I am today. To die free is the only choice in the face of your oppression ... you monster!

Also unless Malack has ran the test he might not know what happens himself - vampirism seems to be fairly rare (though not as rare as being a Lich).

- and now for a glass of absinthe.

[Thrillhouse]

He wants to go to the Dwarven Lands (imho, not necessarily; could be somewhere else that's important to Odin and Thor) and f--- s--- up on Hel's behalf. He's not looking for a cleric, only the nearest place with a cleric of that level. Which happens to be the DL.

But it seems fairly likely that the Order would want to stop in the Dwarven Lands ANYWAY. It's true that HPOH might be concerned that the real Durkon would refuse and thus arouse suspicion, they've never actually discussed with him the possibility of going there, so him saying "Well, the world is at stake, I have to go" might not arouse any suspicion.

My guess is that the spell is a red herring. There is a specific cleric in town that HPOH needs to be brought to, and the person's high level is a way of IDENTIFYING them, as there aren't other clerics around of that person's level. I doubt that it's that he actually needs a specific spell from the person.

[Thrillhouse]

Not quite, my thinking was that it could be regarded as drastic enough that Malack could regard it as destroying the person he is - same as if you were polymorphed into a squid - a squids thought pattern and how it perceives the the world might be different enough for you to consider your old self to have been destroyed.

Further even relative minor things can be important to people.
Doctor: You shall drink no more absinthe from this day forward - or you shall die within a year.
Patient: NO! Not drinking absinthe is merely a complicated way of annihilating the person I am today. To die free is the only choice in the face of your oppression ... you monster!

Also unless Malack has ran the test he might not know what happens himself - vampirism seems to be fairly rare (though not as rare as being a Lich).

- and now for a glass of absinthe.

The tough thing about generalizing about vampires from anything Malack said is that the guy is very philosophical about the concept of "identity" in the first place and thus very metaphorical about the whole vampire thing.

Presumably both vampires work the same way--I think we even have the author's direct word on this--so Malack and the "ignorant barbarian shaman" (I will call him "Fred Flintsnake" for convenience) had a similar thing going on, in that Malack gained control of Fred Flintsnake's body immediately and over time was able to absorb his memories, same as HPOH and Durkon.

Yet, Malack speaks as though he's one person. Whereas HPOH sees himself as utterly separate from Durkon, Malack says that "I" had a different name 200 years ago, and refers to Fred Flintsnake's brothers as HIS OWN siblings. It's quite possible that Malack figures that seeing all of Fred Flintsnake's memories means that the two of them are one and the same–as we might imagine Malack saying, what is a man aside from his experiences? By knowing everything Flintsnake knows, surely Malack's own personality becomes affected.

This is probably why Malack assumed Durkula and himself would be friends. He did not know that Hel always gets first dibs on dwarven vampires, but he must have assumed that, once this vampire absorbs all of Durkon's memories, he'll become a little like Durkon. The original Durkon is gone ("I do not care to linger where tragedy visited a friend", as he says when they leave the place Durkon died) but this new vampire is not totally unconnected to the original.

So it's hard to know what exactly he means will happen when he is staked. If the vampire soul leaves, Fred Flintsnake still remembers everything Malack did and experienced, presumably? Unless the "dormancy" HPOH refers to means that the living soul stops seeing things, and thus Flintsnake wouldn't remember anything past the first year or so (and thus he would eliminate "the person I am TODAY" but there would still be some of their shared experiences).

And as you said, it's hard to know. Malack's never BEEN staked, and even with his extensive library, I suspect that there is no book in the OOTSverse anywhere that describes what exactly happens to the vampire's soul when it is staked.

[kivzirrum]

The tough thing about generalizing about vampires from anything Malack said is that the guy is very philosophical about the concept of "identity" in the first place and thus very metaphorical about the whole vampire thing.

Presumably both vampires work the same way--I think we even have the author's direct word on this--so Malack and the "ignorant barbarian shaman" (I will call him "Fred Flintsnake" for convenience) had a similar thing going on, in that Malack gained control of Fred Flintsnake's body immediately and over time was able to absorb his memories, same as HPOH and Durkon.

Yet, Malack speaks as though he's one person. Whereas HPOH sees himself as utterly separate from Durkon, Malack says that "I" had a different name 200 years ago, and refers to Fred Flintsnake's brothers as HIS OWN siblings. It's quite possible that Malack figures that seeing all of Fred Flintsnake's memories means that the two of them are one and the same–as we might imagine Malack saying, what is a man aside from his experiences? By knowing everything Flintsnake knows, surely Malack's own personality becomes affected.

This is probably why Malack assumed Durkula and himself would be friends. He did not know that Hel always gets first dibs on dwarven vampires, but he must have assumed that, once this vampire absorbs all of Durkon's memories, he'll become a little like Durkon. The original Durkon is gone ("I do not care to linger where tragedy visited a friend", as he says when they leave the place Durkon died) but this new vampire is not totally unconnected to the original.

So it's hard to know what exactly he means will happen when he is staked. If the vampire soul leaves, Fred Flintsnake still remembers everything Malack did and experienced, presumably? Unless the "dormancy" HPOH refers to means that the living soul stops seeing things, and thus Flintsnake wouldn't remember anything past the first year or so (and thus he would eliminate "the person I am TODAY" but there would still be some of their shared experiences).

And as you said, it's hard to know. Malack's never BEEN staked, and even with his extensive library, I suspect that there is no book in the OOTSverse anywhere that describes what exactly happens to the vampire's soul when it is staked.

Two points.

1) "Fred Flintsnake." I love it.

2) I took the line about eternal dormancy to mean that the trapped soul essentially fades. Sure, it's still trapped, but it's basically hibernating, or in a coma. So my personal impression would be that, in the scenario of resurrection post-dormancy, he would probably not remember everything that the vampire spirit did. However, as everyone seems to agree, basically everything that has not been explicitly stated in the comic or by Rich on the forums is baseless speculation, so yeah. "Hard to know" sums it up real well.

Actually part of me hopes this stuff is never explained--wild, unfounded theories are so much fun!

[Amphiox]

The tough thing about generalizing about vampires from anything Malack said is that the guy is very philosophical about the concept of "identity" in the first place and thus very metaphorical about the whole vampire thing.

Presumably both vampires work the same way--I think we even have the author's direct word on this--so Malack and the "ignorant barbarian shaman" (I will call him "Fred Flintsnake" for convenience) had a similar thing going on, in that Malack gained control of Fred Flintsnake's body immediately and over time was able to absorb his memories, same as HPOH and Durkon.

Yet, Malack speaks as though he's one person. Whereas HPOH sees himself as utterly separate from Durkon, Malack says that "I" had a different name 200 years ago, and refers to Fred Flintsnake's brothers as HIS OWN siblings. It's quite possible that Malack figures that seeing all of Fred Flintsnake's memories means that the two of them are one and the same–as we might imagine Malack saying, what is a man aside from his experiences? By knowing everything Flintsnake knows, surely Malack's own personality becomes affected.

This is probably why Malack assumed Durkula and himself would be friends. He did not know that Hel always gets first dibs on dwarven vampires, but he must have assumed that, once this vampire absorbs all of Durkon's memories, he'll become a little like Durkon. The original Durkon is gone ("I do not care to linger where tragedy visited a friend", as he says when they leave the place Durkon died) but this new vampire is not totally unconnected to the original.

So it's hard to know what exactly he means will happen when he is staked. If the vampire soul leaves, Fred Flintsnake still remembers everything Malack did and experienced, presumably? Unless the "dormancy" HPOH refers to means that the living soul stops seeing things, and thus Flintsnake wouldn't remember anything past the first year or so (and thus he would eliminate "the person I am TODAY" but there would still be some of their shared experiences).

And as you said, it's hard to know. Malack's never BEEN staked, and even with his extensive library, I suspect that there is no book in the OOTSverse anywhere that describes what exactly happens to the vampire's soul when it is staked.

All indications are that the vampire soul is created fresh at the moment of vampirization and inserted into the body, and over the course of absorbing the memories and personality of the host, it becomes essentially a copy of the original soul. If the Death God responsible for creating the soul did not, as Hel did, insert any additional agendas into the vampire soul, then it basically starts as a blank slate, upon which the old personality is written. So you end up essentially with two CDs containing the same data. Malack may well consider that to mean that they are the same person, one individual, the same way a sentient AI that copies itself may consider both copies to be just extensions of the same underlying individual.

Or one could consider the old Greek philosophical argument about the river, or the Ship of Theseus. When the vampire soul finishes absorbing all the memories and the old soul goes dormant, it functionally replaces the old soul, just as the flowing water in the river is replaced by newer water as it flows by, and the ship of Theseus gets every plank and nail replaced in turn over time. At the end of the process, its still the same river, and still the same ship.

[Snails]

Having murdered Flintsnake's birth family, Flintsnake ran out of useful information for Malack to peruse circa 190 years ago. Presumably Flintsnake is catatonic, interrupted by bouts of whimpering to himself -- Malack stopped noticing 2 human lifetimes ago.

The HPoH was "born" into Durkon with a specific agenda. We have no reason to believe that was Malack's experience or the experience of anyone Malack has ever known; thus Malack had no reason to anticipate such a thing. Malack may simply not understand the subtleties of vampirism with regard to the different pantheons. Presumably all his previous "children" were spirits from Nergal, and they behaved in a predictable enough manner.

[veti]

Yet, Malack speaks as though he's one person. Whereas HPOH sees himself as utterly separate from Durkon, Malack says that "I" had a different name 200 years ago, and refers to Fred Flintsnake's brothers as HIS OWN siblings. It's quite possible that Malack figures that seeing all of Fred Flintsnake's memories means that the two of them are one and the same–as we might imagine Malack saying, what is a man aside from his experiences? By knowing everything Flintsnake knows, surely Malack's own personality becomes affected.

This is probably why Malack assumed Durkula and himself would be friends. He did not know that Hel always gets first dibs on dwarven vampires, but he must have assumed that, once this vampire absorbs all of Durkon's memories, he'll become a little like Durkon. The original Durkon is gone ("I do not care to linger where tragedy visited a friend", as he says when they leave the place Durkon died) but this new vampire is not totally unconnected to the original.

It's worth remembering that everything Malack said about vampirism was more or less explicitly designed to conceal the truth from the people he was talking to, especially Durkon. Right up until the reveal in 946, we had no idea how vampirism works in OOTS: there were lots and lots of people on this very board arguing that "Durkon is evil now, because becoming a vampire does that to you, what do you mean 'why'?". We can even assume that Malack very specifically didn't want Durkon to know the truth, because if he had, he'd have been more motivated to resist his fate. (He wouldn't have died with a smile on his face.)

However, I think you're right that the "possessing" vampire spirit must become more like the "possessee" as they assimilate. After 200 years of inhabiting the same body and remembering the same life, it'd be very odd if the-entity-known-as-Malack didn't feel that he had quite a lot in common with the former owner of his body.

[dancrilis]

As a thought - Haley has use magic device (and can reliable get a score of 20 to activate a wand, so perhaps a score of +10 or higher already) - she would need a 32 to decipher a scroll of resurrection and at least 33 to cast it (basic DnD rules).
But the Giant has no need to need to stick with those figures if he felt it was better to ignore them - and given that Elan didn't know she could use them Roy and Durkon might not know she is skilling up either.

I kindof wonder how (v)Durkon would react to the offer.

[Magmafeesh]

What if Durkula is searching for a copy of that invitation for Durkon to return to the dwarven lands? Or the scribe who wrote the original letter? I'm sure that the High Priest, upon hearing of the destruction of Azure City, might have assumed that the letter was lost, and sent copies of the letter to other high-ranking priests, on the off-chance that Durkon would happen by them at some point. Hel might know about who were the customary message bearers to and from the temples (who'd probably stop by Tinkertown periodically), and they might have that letter with them. That way, Durkula would have his excuse to enter the lands legally (and vampirically) without objecting or needing to remain on the ship once they enter dwarven settlements.

[Snails]

As a thought - Haley has use magic device (and can reliable get a score of 20 to activate a wand, so perhaps a score of +10 or higher already) - she would need a 32 to decipher a scroll of resurrection and at least 33 to cast it (basic DnD rules).
But the Giant has no need to need to stick with those figures if he felt it was better to ignore them - and given that Elan didn't know she could use them Roy and Durkon might not know she is skilling up either.

I kindof wonder how (v)Durkon would react to the offer.

Haley could easily have a +20 UMD (18 ranks at level 15, plus Cha 14). It is conceivable to gain +2 skill synergy from both Decipher Script and Spellcraft. Throw on an Eagle's Splendor for another +2. So +26 is within reach, sticking with Core.

If we care about the numbers. But it seems "un-Haley-ish" to be built that way, unless her wands prove fun and she levels up again.

I would expect HPoH to argue that he lacks sufficient gems to use on less than a sure thing. The likelihood of casualties at the final Gate is quite high, and he needs to hoard the spell components unless casting the spell gains a clear benefit.

As I mentioned before, I do wonder what HPoH would say if an 11th level Priest comes forth, and the means to acquire a scroll becomes apparent. Roy would surely jump at that opportunity.

[Messenger]

Not quite, my thinking was that it could be regarded as drastic enough that Malack could regard it as destroying the person he is - same as if you were polymorphed into a squid - a squids thought pattern and how it perceives the the world might be different enough for you to consider your old self to have been destroyed.

Further even relative minor things can be important to people.
Doctor: You shall drink no more absinthe from this day forward - or you shall die within a year.
Patient: NO! Not drinking absinthe is merely a complicated way of annihilating the person I am today. To die free is the only choice in the face of your oppression ... you monster!

Also unless Malack has ran the test he might not know what happens himself - vampirism seems to be fairly rare (though not as rare as being a Lich).

- and now for a glass of absinthe.

Honestly, the man in your example sounds particularly shallow and even idiotic for just complaining about not being able to drink absinthe. I understand being cranky about not being able to take something you're addicted to, but a person not able to take what they usually always got is still the same person- just not able to take what they usually always got.

For that matter, we've seen a lot of example of drastic character changes and growth within the comic. For example, Belkar, at least thrice. Since you mentioned Polymorph, remember that V got turned into a lizard and yet was still very much him/herself despite not being able to speak or cast many spells; s/he also got bound to three of the most Evil magic users around. Haley has learned to trust people. Elan is "no longer a twin". The closest thing we have to what you've been saying is Roy's resurrection: he forgot he had to walk.

The thing is: Belkar is still Belkar, V is still V, Haley is still Haley, Elan is still Elan, and Roy is still Roy despite all that.

And say what you would about Malack (actually, as a vampire and villain, I find him to be massively likable and respectable), one thing he isn't is petty and idiotic. As I've been saying, he wouldn't have found the loss of vampirism via resurrection to be that bad if it didn't mean the actual loss of himself. Can't turn into a bat, hang upside down, drain life, etc.? That's just being a munchkin. That's not a threat to one's identity at all.

As I said, I don't think being alive again as the Malack Durkon knew was his problem. I'm sure he knew death and resurrection would bring back the lizardman he once was but not evil vampiric spirit who was talking to Durkon then.

[Ron Miel]

Thrice? Interesting word.

[Domino Quartz]

Yes, it is.

[Lissou]

Yes, it is.

That was a reference to Start of Darkness, I believe. Although I think the quote is "Interesting choice of words"

[Ron Miel]

That was a reference to Start of Darkness, I believe.

Correct.

Although I think the quote is "Interesting choice of words"

I stand corrected.

[dancrilis]

... he wouldn't have found the loss of vampirism via resurrection to be that bad if it didn't mean the actual loss of himself.

You are reading into Malack's character things that we haven't been shown conclusively and than claiming they are fact.

Further you are using that reading to extrapolate that he has knowledge that he might not have had.

I'm sure he knew death and resurrection would bring back the lizardman he once was but not evil vampiric spirit who was talking to Durkon then.

Likewise, any assumptions that characters in the comic know or understand the details of how this process occurs on a detailed internal level should be thrown out the window. They don't. Being a vampire is super-rare; being returned to life after being a vampire so you can share the logistics of how it worked from your point of view in such a way that it entered a general body of knowledge that people would have learned about in the course of their education is simply not something that has ever occurred.

Did Malack undertake the creation of a child solely to destroy then and raise them - my reading is that he cared more about his children than to use them in a study like that, and the Giant has stated that such has never happened for it to pass into general knowledge - so how would Malack have known what would happen to him outside of guessing?

[Messenger]

You are reading into Malack's character things that we haven't been shown conclusively and than claiming they are fact.

I'm pretty sure pettiness and idiocy aren't part of his character as we've seen in the comic, whereas your reasoning posits a rather shallow and trivial example of why he wouldn't want to be raised despite the possibility that it'd still be him, Malack, the evil spirit created by vampirism, in control.

Further you are using that reading to extrapolate that he has knowledge that he might not have had.

And you assume that because he might not have that knowledge he therefore doesn't.

That's despite him being a high-ranking, high-level cleric of Nergal, the western pantheon's god of death, complete with a library that contains enough lore to allow the research and creation of such spells as Protection from Sunlight and Mass Death Ward. He could have gotten the knowledge from Nergal himself who likely communicates with him as per his agenda to one day build an empire of the dead in the same way the HPoH communes or is keenly aware of Hel's agenda for the northern pantheon. Alternatively, he may have enough resources to realize and conclude this particular piece of knowledge; and that's if his books don't outright say, "A vampire slain and resurrected comes back as its original person."

Furthermore- now that I think about it- if indeed he either:
a) does know that a resurrected vampire comes back with its evil spirit still in charge, or
b) didn't know that a resurrected vampire comes back with its original spirit in charge
why did he talk about his original spirit/character in the strip I cited? There'd be no point either way, no stark statement that resurrection would be an obliteration of the Malack Durkon knew, that getting staked was more preferable. He thus has to have at least some knowledge of the reality if not the possibility.

Quite frankly, it's just far likelier that he does know than doesn't.

Did Malack undertake the creation of a child solely to destroy then and raise them - my reading is that he cared more about his children than to use them in a study like that, and the Giant has stated that such has never happened for it to pass into general knowledge - so how would Malack have known what would happen to him outside of guessing?

I'm pretty sure he created "children" not as experiments (certainly not; it was Nale who slew them) but as vampiric "offspring". But I've already explained how Malack can actually have knowledge of the particulars of his vampiric state in a world where resurrection is possible. This is especially where he has an agenda to pursue that may naturally be opposed and derailed by him being destroyed- which did happen, by the way.

[dancrilis]

And you assume that because he might not have that knowledge he therefore doesn't.

No, I assume that because he might not have that knowledge he therefore might not have that knowledge.

I am not sure if you disagree with that or not?

Now assuming that:
1. He doesn't have the knowledge (i.e the might not element turned out to be true) than he would not know what would happen to him when he was destroyed and raised - and would logically err on the side of caution.
2. He does have the knowledge (i.e the might not element turned out to be false) he might be highly attached to his vampiric state to the point that losing it would be worse than destruction for him (for whatever reason).
3. He does have the knowledge (i.e the might not element turned out to be false) he might want Durkon to believe that destroying him would be final - for any number of reasons.

So regardless if whether he knew or not he could have used the exact same words - and therefore we the audience don't know for sure.

I suspect that destroying Durkon and raising him will result in a LG Dwarf, but it is possible within the text and within the Giant's explanations of the vampiric condition for that not to be the case.

[Messenger]

No, I assume that because he might not have that knowledge he therefore might not have that knowledge.

I am not sure if you disagree with that or not?

Yes, you have, and thus I do disagree. It's how you've been arguing. You're ignoring a lot of the stuff the comic has presented, whether it's
a) his very direct ties to a god of death
b) for whom he's wholeheartedly (however possible, being undead) pursuing a particular agenda,
c) to his good sized body of research materials,
d) to his character, and
e) to the specific dialogue of #874:
I'm sure the livin' Malack would-
Malack: I had a different name when I was alive- 200 years ago. I was the ignorant barbarian shaman of a tribe that no longer exists. Bringing me back to life is just a complicated way of annihilating the person I am today. Save your diamond dust and stake me instead.

You ignore all that as meaning Malack knows or assumed that resurrection on a vampirized person brings back the person but not his vampiric spirit in favor of your reading:

"He just doesn't want to be a non-vampire."

And that also assumes that becoming a non-vampire equals not just an annihilation to Malack but even a complicated method for such.

For that matter, your reading also makes Malack's reference to his original character irrelevant.

All that even though it doesn't make sense according to all the other in-comic details we have.

Now assuming that:
1. He doesn't have the knowledge (i.e the might not element turned out to be true) than he would not know what would happen to him when he was destroyed and raised - and would logically err on the side of caution.
2. He does have the knowledge (i.e the might not element turned out to be false) he might be highly attached to his vampiric state to the point that losing it would be worse than destruction for him (for whatever reason).
3. He does have the knowledge (i.e the might not element turned out to be false) he might want Durkon to believe that destroying him would be final - for any number of reasons.

So regardless if whether he knew or not he could have used the exact same words - and therefore we the audience don't know for sure.

1. "Bringing me back to life is just a complicated way of annihilating the person I am today." is very different from "I can't risk myself for my mission.", of which he only talks about in the succeeding update. He was very personal in his reference, and not even touching what he wants to do afterwards.
2. Even though he'd still be himself, would still be a cleric of Nergal, could still continue his agenda, and would still die anyway in accordance to his beliefs? Or that he could get resurrected (or vampirized at really old age) to continue his mission?
3. Even though that would be deceitful, against his obviously Lawful behavior, and against his honesty and respect for Durkon?

Only in the context of Malack knowing that resurrecting a vampirized person doesn't bring back the vampiric spirit does any and all of this make sense.

I suspect that destroying Durkon and raising him will result in a LG Dwarf, but it is possible within the text and within the Giant's explanations of the vampiric condition for that not to be the case.

Which, by the way, is against your reading of Malack and the resurrection of vampirized characters here.

[dancrilis]

Yes, you have, and thus I do disagree. It's how you've been arguing.

No that is a complete misreading of what I have been saying.

How we started this discussion:

Maybe that wasn't said very clear on my part. The theorie is that he wants to return himself in Durkons body to life, to get around the limitations of his current form.

I find it unlikely - but not impossible.

Ah ... where do you get that?

Turning into a vampire turns you evil, there is no mention of having it removed reverting you ...

That was posted before we knew how vampires worked in Oots (I believe) - but it does hold true, there is a slim possibility that the vampire soul would be in the driving seat of the living dwarf after a resurrection.

I clearly stated that I found it unlikely that the vampire Durkon wanted to actually get resurrected - but acknowledged a slim chance that it was possible.

Than you joined the conversation with:

I don't think rezzing a vamp places the evil soul in a now living body ...

Which as stated in the post you replied to I also felt was unlikely.

So no it is not how I have been arguing - the opening course of dialogue in the conversation informs all the other dialogue.

[Messenger]

No that is a complete misreading of what I have been saying.

How we started this discussion:

I clearly stated that I found it unlikely that the vampire Durkon wanted to actually get resurrected - but acknowledged a slim chance that it was possible.

Than you joined the conversation with:

Which as stated in the post you replied to I also felt was unlikely.

So no it is not how I have been arguing - the opening course of dialogue in the conversation informs all the other dialogue.

I'm not saying that you haven't said such was unlikely. But where you uphold that it's possible, what I have been saying- what I've particularly been arguing against- is, if such were the case, that your explanation of #874 and other details revealed in the comic do not make sense.

Ultimately, I find that the only "unlikeliness" here is in the comic or the Giant not directly, explicitly, immediately stating what exactly happens when you resurrect a vampire who was Good in life. That's after his own homebrew explanation for how becoming a vampire makes you Evil as per the rules.

But that's it. That's all. Given what we've seen with Malack, reading carefully between the lines but definitely within the canon work, we can hold as true that rezzing a vamp will indeed bring back the original person without their evil persona and that Malack knows it. And if that's so as seen with Malack, we can be sure such would be the case with Durkon. And if so with Durkon, then seeking a resurrection for himself is not in the HPoH and his patroness' plans.

The only way to keep a newly revived Durkon under the HPoH's control would be for the HPoH or Hel enacting additional measures for again living, breathing Durkon to be possessed. But I'm sure without such, he'd be back to his old self.

Thus, going back to your original statement: in itself not unlikely at all, but impossible.

[Keltest]

I'm not saying that you haven't said such was unlikely. But where you uphold that it's possible, what I have been saying- what I've particularly been arguing against- is, if such were the case, that your explanation of #874 and other details revealed in the comic do not make sense.

Ultimately, I find that the only "unlikeliness" here is in the comic or the Giant not directly, explicitly, immediately stating what exactly happens when you resurrect a vampire who was Good in life. That's after his own homebrew explanation for how becoming a vampire makes you Evil as per the rules.

But that's it. That's all. Given what we've seen with Malack, reading carefully between the lines but definitely within the canon work, we can hold as true that rezzing a vamp will indeed bring back the original person without their evil persona and that Malack knows it. And if that's so as seen with Malack, we can be sure such would be the case with Durkon. And if so with Durkon, then seeking a resurrection for himself is not in the HPoH and his patroness' plans.

The only way to keep a newly revived Durkon under the HPoH's control would be for the HPoH or Hel enacting additional measures for again living, breathing Durkon to be possessed. But I'm sure without such, he'd be back to his old self.

Thus, going back to your original statement: in itself not unlikely at all, but impossible.

Lets look at it narratively for a moment. If resurrecting doesn't bring back Durkon himself, how will the Order get him back? Presumably his big character development arc isn't going to result in him leaving the comic in favor of another token evil team mate with questionable loyalty and an unknown agenda. And Rich has expressed disdain fore True Resurrection as a narrative wrecking ability, so I HIGHLY doubt he will open that can of worms.

[Messenger]

That's up to the Giant to answer and only by a OoTS update.

However, I don't think Durkon needs to get rezzed to "come back", to have his character development moment, etc. He may not be in control of his vampirized body, but he's still definitely in there, watching the HPoH pull all the strings.

In fact, he may already be moving forward with his own character development. Rich has depicted Durkon's true soul as bound and imprisoned within his body yet refusing to give in as much as possible. I'd say that Durkon somehow breaks free in the story. Chekhov's gun and all, you know?