vampirism in order of the stick

[JobsforFun]

How exactly does vampirism work in order of he stick? When someone is turned into a vampire do they loose all free will and are controlled by someone/something else such as Durkon? Or when Malack first turned Durkon into a vampire he did whatever he told him to do until Nale killed Malack and Durkon was supposedly given "fire will"?

[SaintRidley]

Yes. And yes.

I highly recommend re-reading the strips from this book up to the beginning of the godsmoot. Should clarify things.

[JobsforFun]

So does that mean that Malack was being controlled basically?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

So does that mean that Malack was being controlled basically?

No, Malack was doing the controlling.

GW

[JobsforFun]

No, Malack was doing the controlling.

GW

One of the main things I am slightly iffy on is vampirism and alignments. Could Malack been another alignment other than LE before he was turned himself?

(And I meant was Malack being controlled from within like Durkon is currently)

[hroþila]

There's several layers:

• The mortal spirit, who provides the body and the memories but is powerless (Durkon; the pre-Malack lizardfolk)
• The vampire spirit who takes control over the mortal spirit (Vamp Durkon; Malack)
• The vampire liege who overrides the hosted vampire spirit to an extent unless they become free-willed (Malack for Vamp Durkon; unknown for Malack)

They're all different entities and can be of different alignments.

[JobsforFun]

There's several layers:

• The mortal spirit, who provides the body and the memories but is powerless (Durkon; the pre-Malack lizardfolk)
• The vampire spirit who takes control over the mortal spirit (Vamp Durkon; Malack)
• The vampire liege who overrides the hosted vampire spirit to an extent unless they become free-willed (Malack in Durkon's case; unknown in Malack's case)

They're all different entities and can be of different alignments.

Ah thanks! I wish we knew backgrounds for some of the characters. At least we know belkar!

[TheNecrocomicon]

One of the main things I am slightly iffy on is vampirism and alignments. Could Malack been another alignment other than LE before he was turned himself?

(And I meant was Malack being controlled from within like Durkon is currently)

Malack did once explain (while fighting Durkon) that he was formerly the "ignorant barbarian shaman of a tribe that no longer exists" which, I would estimate, probably means that he was CN or CE before being turned into a vampire.

He even states that his original name wasn't Malack, so the implication seems to be that he either willingly left his living self or persona behind, or was taken over entirely by the vampire spirit much as Lurkon is currently trying to do to his host.

[Quild]

One of the main things I am slightly iffy on is vampirism and alignments. Could Malack been another alignment other than LE before he was turned himself?

(And I meant was Malack being controlled from within like Durkon is currently)

Malack is only the name of the vampire we've met. As he says in #874, the barbarian shaman that lived 200 years ago had a different name.
The fight between Durkon and Malack brings a lot of interesting stuff but keeps silent the "control" thing. Most people assumed that Malack meant that he had changed in 200 years.

It is possible that this being isn't captured anymore like Durkon is, but has been completely absorbed.

@TheNecrocomicon: I'm not sure that "barbarian" here means the barbarian class. It's probably more something like "pagan".

[TheNecrocomicon]

@TheNecrocomicon: I'm not sure that "barbarian" here means the barbarian class. It's probably more something like "pagan".

It's not just "barbarian" that I'm going on here, as much as that's an ambiguous term like you pointed out.

First off, Malack says he used to be part of a "tribe", meaning a familial, ethnic or social unit, not an orderly totalitarian state like the Empire of Blood, or the necrotheocracy he subsequently said he envisioned creating for Nergal's glory. So he started out less Lawful than he later became.

For comparison, Girard Draketooth led a clan or tribe of his family members to defend his Gate, and if I recall (or as per the good folks over at the C&LG thread) he was hardcore CN.

If he did really mean "pagan", then it would also stand to reason that the living snakefolk that became Malack did not adhere to the faith of Nergal, meaning that the shaman was a servant of some other divine power, or at the very least, that he did not adhere to an organized religion.

[Ceaon]

You are free to make any guesses about the mortal-before-Malack.
But I assume you know what happens when you assume.
Wait.

[JobsforFun]

You are free to make any guesses about the mortal-before-Malack.
But I assume you know what happens when you assume.
Wait.

Sadly unless The Giant decides to publish back stories for a lot of the characters we'll sadly never know who Malack was before hand. Only person we have some sort of idea is Belkar.

[Kish]

In light of Malack's own moral sense, I think the only thing that can be derived about Unknown Lizardfolk Shaman from Malack's calling him an ignorant barbarian, is that he was somewhere east of Axiomatic and somewhere north of Vile.

[Goblin_Priest]

A backstory for Malack could be interesting, I'd imagine much moreso than for most other NPCs.

[Jasdoif]

I highly recommend re-reading the strips from this book up to the beginning of the godsmoot. Should clarify things.

And for those interested in supplementary information:

There is absolutely zero difference between Malack and Durkon's vampirizations, with the sole exception that Hel made the spirit sitting in Durkon's head while Nergal made the one that was sitting in Malack's. Hel is able to put that spirit into Durkon's body because of the physical vampirization process that Malack enacts on Durkon's corpse, which opens a door to Negative Energy and traps Durkon's spirit inside it. Which would also be true of any other vampire created from a person who fell under the Northern Pantheon's domain, though she wouldn't take a personal interest in just any person because they wouldn't be a powerful cleric.

Hel does not have rightful dominion over Durkon's soul as part of her normal assignment of dishonored souls, however, because Durkon did in fact die in battle. She got involved because she is also, separately, the Northern deity of undeath, and one of her "duties" is making the evil spirits for all Northern vampires. The vampirization process basically jammed up the normal disposition of Durkon's soul by trapping it inside the undead body. Where Durkon's actual soul ends up will not be determined until/unless it is freed. It's a like a naturally occurring Trap the Soul spell.
....
All of Malack's dialogue regarding who he is/was should be viewed through the lens of me not wanting to spoil the scene from #946. Some of what he says is metaphorical and all of it is deliberately ambiguous, because I was consciously trying to make you think one thing while another thing was actually true. As a rule of thumb, it is not in my interest to lock down the metaphysics of things if I don't have to, so don't expect that I will have characters exposition How Things Work just to clear up your confusion.
....
I'm sure there are more byzantine arguments going around that I'm missing, but really, this isn't as complicated as most of you are making it. There is only one way that vampirization works, and it overrides the natural order of things, including where souls go. That's why everyone says things like, "That's against the natural order of things!" about it. However, Hel is not breaking the rules of vampirization itself at all.

Malack had free will. He was an Evil person, in the same way that Redcloak is an Evil person. If he was slavishly loyal to Nergal, that was because he was a cleric, not because he was a vampire. He chose to be devoted to something larger than himself when he could have just rampaged around the continent draining people. Everything he did, every action you saw him take, was his own decision. Nothing about the metaphysics of how vampirism works changes anything.

"Shaman" is just a descriptive term, used to paint a picture of what sort of life he had. He was still a cleric, mechanically speaking. He would have switched gods because whatever nature-oriented barbarian deity he used to worship no longer granted spells to a vampire that was keeping his former cleric's soul hostage. I suppose, hypothetically, he could have decided to keep worshipping a god who didn't want him and never granted him spells, ignoring the fact that there was another god who did want him and would grant him spells. But he didn't. And maybe, hypothetically, there's another god out there that would accept a vampire cleric other than Nergal, and he could have started worshipping him. But he didn't. He looked at the situation logically and said, "Oh, this must be my rightful place in the universe. Hail Nergal!" and called it a day. That's still free will.

[Darth Paul]

You are free to make any guesses about the mortal-before-Malack.
But I assume you know what happens when you assume.
Wait.

In the words of Samuel L. Jackson (from The Long Kiss Goodnight):
"When you make an assumption, you make an ass out of You, and Umption."

[TheNecrocomicon]

You are free to make any guesses about the mortal-before-Malack.
But I assume you know what happens when you assume.
Wait.

Cool, now I don't need to make guesses, or at least fewer of them. Thanks for the research, Jasdoif.

Malack-the-Nergal-worshipping-vampire was clearly LE, but from Mr. Burlew's own explanation, the living Malack precursor worshipped a "nature-oriented barbarian deity" who wasn't Nergal prior to death and vampirization. While nature-oriented deities can logically fit anywhere on the lawful-chaotic axis, chances are that the barbarian deity that Malack originally served is probably at least Neutral on the good-evil axis, since being outright Evil tends to bias the deity and their strongest adherents towards wanton destruction, instead of the carefully maintained balance between creation and destruction that nature-oriented deities generally regard as paramount in the effort to keep the natural world and its cycles of life and death operating harmoniously.

Of course, that's still empirical speculation, unless or until Mr. Burlew decides to make the events of Malack's distant past explicit, which I highly doubt will ever happen because the character has served his narrative purpose in the story and, from our perspective as readers, has been dead for roughly three years (and short of a True Resurrection or Wish, he is not coming back).

[Kish]

Malack might well have a prominent role in a Linear Guild/Vector Legion prequel.

[Morquard]

Malack might well have a prominent role in a Linear Guild/Vector Legion prequel.

Malack might, and honestly most likely will, but pre-vampire-not-Malack won't. He's been dead for centuries.

[Darth Paul]

Malack might, and honestly most likely will, but pre-vampire-not-Malack won't. He's been dead for centuries.

Unless some characters gets an individual "origins of" flashback sequence, in the midst of the "group" origins story. IIRC this is the way both prequel novels have worked.

In that case Malack might get a distant flashback sequence to the shaman, before he became Malack.

[wumpus]

Unless some characters gets an individual "origins of" flashback sequence, in the midst of the "group" origins story. IIRC this is the way both prequel novels have worked.

In that case Malack might get a distant flashback sequence to the shaman, before he became Malack.

There isn't any point. Pre-vampire Malack was entirely forgotten by Malack after he read through his memories for whatever xp they were worth (and/or survive in the tribe until he is on his feet). The only real question is if he was allowed to "go to the dark" (assuming he was evil, in the stickverse alignment doesn't always correspond to what's listed in the monster manual) and accept that he is dead (which Durkon certainly wouldn't if he had the option). I doubt a recovered Durkon* (who is certainly the only one in the multiverse with a motive for doing such) could cast true resurrection on him.

The actual *bite* might matter, because that is when Malack was "born", but what the person who occupied the body before Malack simply isn't a character in this story.

* Of course, I'm pretty sure the Giant made sure that Durkon was vamped before level 17, and even if he got credit for xp now it wouldn't count because of his CR. Don't expect to see a pre-Malack Malack (would 'heal' fix all the mental issues he would have due to be trapped for centuries)?

[Peelee]

I think the best shot at seeing a pre-vampiric Malack was when choose-your-own-story rewards were being offered during the Kickstarter, and none of the three buyers decided on him, so I don't believe we'll ever see what he was like.

I'd love to be wrong on that.

[Morquard]

I could be remembering wrong, but I think by the time the Kickstarter was going, Malack being a vampire wasn't known yet.

[Peelee]

I could be remembering wrong, but I think by the time the Kickstarter was going, Malack being a vampire wasn't known yet.

I was gonna look it up, but then I just remembered you're right; the reveal happened in the comic-every-day-for-9-days KS reward.

[Oxenstierna]

Something's been bothering me about this one part, and yes I know it's cutting the original question short: "When someone is turned into a vampire do they loose all free will..."

Before I continue I should mention I have a 0% track record of prediction of the OOTS plotline. For example I thought #954 was foreshadowing of Hel's plot (so she would be trying to trick Thor into breaking the domain agreement) rather than a clerical magic exposition together with a Belkar gag.

I know the word of Giant is that in the OOTS world vampires are rare and it's not reasonable to know how it all works. However in #946 Hel herself asks "What of the dwarf's spirit?" to which the vampire spirit answers "It is well in hand, my lady." If it was absolutely certain that free will was lost, why would Hel even ask? It's not likely Hel doesn't know what is possible with vampires. While the vampire spirit goes on to say how Durkon struggles but can't resist, is powerless, is of no concern - why would that be a necessary reassurance to Hel's question if there was no possibility of resistance? I would say while we have seen Durkon's will and spirit crushed in the comic so far, it doesn't prove that Durkon is powerless and has lost all free will under the 'vampire rules'. After all, the goddess of Dwarven death questioned the subjugation.

Now maybe I'm wrong as usual and the purpose of the dialogue was just to put some drama before the 'real Durkon' reveal - the bound image at the end. Answer the reader's speculation with some villain gloating and let the story move on confirming the new 'Durkon isn't Durkon' plotline rather than leaving it open.

#963 suggests some form of outsmarting the vampire spirit is possible and this may be the route rather than a struggle for free will. To me an outsmarting followed by the vampire spirit feeling crushed and Durkon regaining some measure of control at a critical point feels like it would be the most satisfying (uplifting) conclusion. Which probably means it won't happen. Or would be tempered by some other setback e.g. they have to kill Durkon anyway. I can only speculate, and after all, I have that 0% record to keep going...

[factotum]

I don't think anyone ever said that Durkon's spirit has lost all free will. He's imprisoned, and is forced to give up memories at the demand of the vampire spirit, but he still has free will. It's just that this free will does not directly affect the vampire's actions in any way--I suppose Durkon could pick and choose which memory to show in response to a demand, but he can't show something which is entirely irrelevant to the question asked, so the amount of influence he has is fairly negligible.

[Morquard]

I think what Oxenstierna is asking (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is this: Is it possible that Durkon's soul ever regains control of the undead body, and thereby getting his Free Will back, as opposed as to be a slave to the will of the Vampire soul?

Well I don't think you can call that Free Will (he still has free will, just no means to enforce it and the vampire soul is also free willed), but that's not the point. I believe "Durkon will somehow trick the Vampire and take control, maybe only temporarly at a crucial point in the story" is one of the favorite theories on the forum on how the Vampire will be defeated.
It kinda makes sense too. This is Durkon's book. It will be so much more satisfying if it's Durkon who defeats his nemesis, and not Roy doing it for him and simply raises him.

[factotum]

I don't think Durkon's going to somehow prove strong enough to overcome the vampire spirit when no other vampire that we know of ever has. I can see him maybe adversely influencing it enough at a critical moment to make the difference between victory and defeat, though.

[Keltest]

I don't think Durkon's going to somehow prove strong enough to overcome the vampire spirit when no other vampire that we know of ever has. I can see him maybe adversely influencing it enough at a critical moment to make the difference between victory and defeat, though.

By "no other vampire that we know of" do you mean just Malack then? Because out sample size of non-durkon vampires is approximately one.

[Morquard]

Well there's the whole bunch of Vampires that stormed the godsmoot, but those were literally created 20 minutes ago, and we don't even know if they're free willed yet or actually still thralls. So can't count those either.

Also "accomplishing something no one ever did before and everyone thinks is impossible" isn't that what heroes do all the time?